Scientific proof that God exists?

[protokol]

And I stand by my point that a supernatural being cannot be proved by science, because by its nature it is supernatural, and therefore does not follow scientific laws. This renders the being's existence impossible to prove scientifically. I'm still baffled that some people don't understand this simple concept...

How do you prove that empty space/nothing/outerspace exists? After all, you can't really grab hold of space/nothing/outerspace and analyze it chemically or electronically or something. You prove it is there by analyzing the material things within it or that it is inside of.

Same with God. We see no source for the complexity of the universe. Such complexity can't exist... except for the fact that it does. Whatever God is, the fact that the universe exists proves that God exists.

You can easily show scientific evidence that empty space/nothing exists, I already mentioned one example - adding sodium chloride to water causes the volume of water to decrease.

You can use things like vacuum chambers to electronically or chemically analyze the vacuum, for example by measuring how quickly light passes through it. Quantum theory is another example of evidence for empty space in between subatomic particles - we can predict exactly how atoms will behave, based on our knowledge of their structure (i.e. a nucleus, with electron clouds very far away, and a huge amount of empty space between).

I don't know where you've got this idea from, you don't need to be able to grab hold of something to show it exists... 

[1714052080]

1714052080

[1714052080]

1714052080

[protokol]

And I stand by my point that a supernatural being cannot be proved by science, because by its nature it is supernatural, and therefore does not follow scientific laws. This renders the being's existence impossible to prove scientifically. I'm still baffled that some people don't understand this simple concept...

Mediumship is a phenomenon that can be tested. A supernatural or discarnate entity can be shown to be the simplest explanation of certain evidence, like in the paper "The Problem of Seth's Origin" or the case of the dead chessmaster who communicated details of his life and played a game characteristic of the prior personality. The hypothesis that is used to explain the existence of this type of personality is called 'survival'.
http://www.aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtml

The problem with this type of research is that it's not repeatable, and in terms of scientific evidence it's very flimsy. Similar to the articles you posted about Deepak Chopra and Stuart Hameroff, they have various theories (some of which do make sense) but it's mostly just speculation. And I don't tend to trust speculation very much when it comes from Deepak Chopra, who as I said is clueless about things like quantum entanglement...

Don't know much about Hameroff, I'll look him up.

Edit: Ah, Hameroff co-wrote the papers regarding the Orch-OR model of consciousness, with Roger Penrose. I've read a little into this hypothesis, and it is very interesting to say the least. But it is not conclusive evidence for any sort of consciousness controlled by quantum computation, their ideas have a lot of criticism.

[Astargath]

Whatever God is, the fact that the universe exists proves that God exists.

If only that was so - we wouldn't have 400+ pages in this thread.

We have no evidence of anything that can make the complexity and size of the universe. Whatever could do the making, would fit the general description and definition of God. If it didn't, it wouldn't be able to make something like the universe with all its "furnishings."

''We have no evidence of anything that can make the complexity and size of the universe.'' You are right badecker we don't, why do you claim you do then?

[qwik2learn]

And I stand by my point that a supernatural being cannot be proved by science, because by its nature it is supernatural, and therefore does not follow scientific laws. This renders the being's existence impossible to prove scientifically. I'm still baffled that some people don't understand this simple concept...

Mediumship is a phenomenon that can be tested. A supernatural or discarnate entity can be shown to be the simplest explanation of certain evidence, like in the paper "The Problem of Seth's Origin" or the case of the dead chessmaster who communicated details of his life and played a game characteristic of the prior personality. The hypothesis that is used to explain the existence of this type of personality is called 'survival'.
http://www.aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtml

The problem with this type of research is that it's not repeatable, and in terms of scientific evidence it's very flimsy. Similar to the articles you posted about Deepak Chopra and Stuart Hameroff, they have various theories (some of which do make sense) but it's mostly just speculation. And I don't tend to trust speculation very much when it comes from Deepak Chopra, who as I said is clueless about things like quantum entanglement...

Don't know much about Hameroff, I'll look him up.

Edit: Ah, Hameroff co-wrote the papers regarding the Orch-OR model of consciousness, with Roger Penrose. I've read a little into this hypothesis, and it is very interesting to say the least. But it is not conclusive evidence for any sort of consciousness controlled by quantum computation, their ideas have a lot of criticism.

Their theory is the best one on the market, it helps explain the clever behavior of paramecium.
The criticism of Penrose/Hameroff's theory is outdated, more recent papers provide new evidence.
Chopra is not clueless about science since according to Hameroff his view is the right one!

There are replication studies in Parapsychology. Also:
Mediumship can be produced and observed under conditions of experimental control, see Cunningham's paper "The content source problem in modern mediumship research".

[BADecker]

Whatever God is, the fact that the universe exists proves that God exists.

If only that was so - we wouldn't have 400+ pages in this thread.

We have no evidence of anything that can make the complexity and size of the universe. Whatever could do the making, would fit the general description and definition of God. If it didn't, it wouldn't be able to make something like the universe with all its "furnishings."

''We have no evidence of anything that can make the complexity and size of the universe.'' You are right badecker we don't, why do you claim you do then?

As you say, we don't have evidence of any thing that can make the complexity of the universe. That leaves room for God, only. God, not being a thing, or anything, has made the universe.

What proof do we have for empty space, which is essentially nothing at all? Does it really exist? Yes. We can tell that "nothing" exists by measuring the things that DO exist, and their relationships.  In a similar way, even though we cannot directly "lay hands on God" to "measure" Him and prove Him thereby, we can prove He exists by measuring the complexity of the universe, especially with regard to cause and effect.

[Astargath]

Whatever God is, the fact that the universe exists proves that God exists.

If only that was so - we wouldn't have 400+ pages in this thread.

We have no evidence of anything that can make the complexity and size of the universe. Whatever could do the making, would fit the general description and definition of God. If it didn't, it wouldn't be able to make something like the universe with all its "furnishings."

''We have no evidence of anything that can make the complexity and size of the universe.'' You are right badecker we don't, why do you claim you do then?

As you say, we don't have evidence of any thing that can make the complexity of the universe. That leaves room for God, only. God, not being a thing, or anything, has made the universe.

What proof do we have for empty space, which is essentially nothing at all? Does it really exist? Yes. We can tell that "nothing" exists by measuring the things that DO exist, and their relationships.  In a similar way, even though we cannot directly "lay hands on God" to "measure" Him and prove Him thereby, we can prove He exists by measuring the complexity of the universe, especially with regard to cause and effect.

If we don't have evidence for what can make the universe then we don't. You can't say we don't have evidence for what created the universe therefore god did it, do you not see how that makes no sense? I don't know who created this chair therefore my father did.

It leaves room to anything because we don't know what it was, you don't know if a being aware of himself made the universe or if is just another process that happened because outside our universe there are more universes or whatever, we can hypothesize as much as we want but there is no evidence for any of it.

[BADecker]

Whatever God is, the fact that the universe exists proves that God exists.

If only that was so - we wouldn't have 400+ pages in this thread.

We have no evidence of anything that can make the complexity and size of the universe. Whatever could do the making, would fit the general description and definition of God. If it didn't, it wouldn't be able to make something like the universe with all its "furnishings."

''We have no evidence of anything that can make the complexity and size of the universe.'' You are right badecker we don't, why do you claim you do then?

As you say, we don't have evidence of any thing that can make the complexity of the universe. That leaves room for God, only. God, not being a thing, or anything, has made the universe.

What proof do we have for empty space, which is essentially nothing at all? Does it really exist? Yes. We can tell that "nothing" exists by measuring the things that DO exist, and their relationships.  In a similar way, even though we cannot directly "lay hands on God" to "measure" Him and prove Him thereby, we can prove He exists by measuring the complexity of the universe, especially with regard to cause and effect.

If we don't have evidence for what can make the universe then we don't.

If doesn't have anything to do with proof. Why bring it up?

You can't say we don't have evidence for what created the universe therefore god did it, do you not see how that makes no sense?

I used the example of "nothing," which is in the universe. Because you want to be deceptive, you ignored my example. We can easily say that we don't have an example of what created the universe within the universe.

I don't know who created this chair therefore my father did.

Since your real father is God, and since the material of the chair, AND, the cause and effect of the forming of it came from God, your father created the chair.

It leaves room to anything because we don't know what it was, you don't know if a being aware of himself made the universe or if is just another process that happened because outside our universe there are more universes or whatever, we can hypothesize as much as we want but there is no evidence for any of it.

That's not entirely correct. Because intelligence, self-awareness, emotion, thought, and all the "things" that we understand in the universe DO exist, God has these attributes within Himself. If He didn't, these things wouldn't exist. We have found nothing in the countless operations of the universe that arises spontaneously. Therefore these do not arise spontaneously either. They have a maker.

We can't call universes that exist outside our universe "universes," because they are so extremely different than our universe that we don't really know what they are. If they were like our universe, they would essentially be part of our universe, and they wouldn't be separate universes. We call them universes in an entirely abstract way, because we don't know that they exist, because "exist" might only be for our universe.

We don't have any evidence of an outside "universe" having anything to do with our universe. But if it was an outside universe that made our universe, then that outside universe is God, and maintains within Himself/Itself all the greatness that we have in our universe, but in far greater abundance, as evidenced by cause and effect and complexity.

Now, let's stick with the topic: the proof for or against God's existence.

[Astargath]

Whatever God is, the fact that the universe exists proves that God exists.

If only that was so - we wouldn't have 400+ pages in this thread.

We have no evidence of anything that can make the complexity and size of the universe. Whatever could do the making, would fit the general description and definition of God. If it didn't, it wouldn't be able to make something like the universe with all its "furnishings."

''We have no evidence of anything that can make the complexity and size of the universe.'' You are right badecker we don't, why do you claim you do then?

As you say, we don't have evidence of any thing that can make the complexity of the universe. That leaves room for God, only. God, not being a thing, or anything, has made the universe.

What proof do we have for empty space, which is essentially nothing at all? Does it really exist? Yes. We can tell that "nothing" exists by measuring the things that DO exist, and their relationships.  In a similar way, even though we cannot directly "lay hands on God" to "measure" Him and prove Him thereby, we can prove He exists by measuring the complexity of the universe, especially with regard to cause and effect.

If we don't have evidence for what can make the universe then we don't.

If doesn't have anything to do with proof. Why bring it up?

You can't say we don't have evidence for what created the universe therefore god did it, do you not see how that makes no sense?

I used the example of "nothing," which is in the universe. Because you want to be deceptive, you ignored my example. We can easily say that we don't have an example of what created the universe within the universe.

I don't know who created this chair therefore my father did.

Since your real father is God, and since the material of the chair, AND, the cause and effect of the forming of it came from God, your father created the chair.

It leaves room to anything because we don't know what it was, you don't know if a being aware of himself made the universe or if is just another process that happened because outside our universe there are more universes or whatever, we can hypothesize as much as we want but there is no evidence for any of it.

That's not entirely correct. Because intelligence, self-awareness, emotion, thought, and all the "things" that we understand in the universe DO exist, God has these attributes within Himself. If He didn't, these things wouldn't exist. We have found nothing in the countless operations of the universe that arises spontaneously. Therefore these do not arise spontaneously either. They have a maker.

We can't call universes that exist outside our universe "universes," because they are so extremely different than our universe that we don't really know what they are. If they were like our universe, they would essentially be part of our universe, and they wouldn't be separate universes. We call them universes in an entirely abstract way, because we don't know that they exist, because "exist" might only be for our universe.

We don't have any evidence of an outside "universe" having anything to do with our universe. But if it was an outside universe that made our universe, then that outside universe is God, and maintains within Himself/Itself all the greatness that we have in our universe, but in far greater abundance, as evidenced by cause and effect and complexity.

Now, let's stick with the topic: the proof for or against God's existence.

How do you know tho? And most importantly, what created god?

''then that outside universe is God'' No it's not because an universe doesn't have the attributes you just said god needed, like emotion, self-awareness, thought or intelligence and you are just contradicting yourself like you usually do. Yeah, let's stick to the logic, your logic is retarded badecker. You can't even make a post without contradicting yourself rofl.

[wander.me]

I truly believe the human species has evolved from primates. I have no information about any scientific proof that a God exists.
And even if there was such a proof, I would find it very hard to believe it.
We are what we are, and we have the right to believe in what we need to believe. It's just that we don't all have to believe in the same things, or havve the same beliefs.

[Bestfriendko]

" Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed "
Think about it ...

[Astargath]

" Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed "
Think about it ...

I thought about it, what am I supposed to get from it? A lot of people believe a lot of different things, are all those things real or true? Are all the gods in the world true because a lot of people believe in them? Belief and blind faith does not lead to the truth.

[asakurayoh26]

For me their is no scientific proof that God exist. It is a matter of spiritual being. God exist in our heart and soul. It is all about our faith and belief. Even though their's no scientific proof that God exist, we all know that God is everywhere. I believed that a real God can't see by our naked eye.

[yishak]

I don't think there are any scientific proofs to show that   we all came from Adam and Eve but the same could be said about evolution. The theory of evolution is just plain stupid, I don't know why many people believe that theory.
I believe that God  exists and I don't need any kind of scientific proof for believing in him. I have seen many people who were once blind, deaf and paralyzed being healed . If you want proof just see on of Pastor Benny Hinn's ministry videos.

[Astargath]

I don't think there are any scientific proofs to show that   we all came from Adam and Eve but the same could be said about evolution. The theory of evolution is just plain stupid, I don't know why many people believe that theory.
I believe that God  exists and I don't need any kind of scientific proof for believing in him. I have seen many people who were once blind, deaf and paralyzed being healed . If you want proof just see on of Pastor Benny Hinn's ministry videos.

Nice funny comment mate.

[protokol]

I don't think there are any scientific proofs to show that   we all came from Adam and Eve but the same could be said about evolution. The theory of evolution is just plain stupid, I don't know why many people believe that theory.
I believe that God  exists and I don't need any kind of scientific proof for believing in him. I have seen many people who were once blind, deaf and paralyzed being healed . If you want proof just see on of Pastor Benny Hinn's ministry videos.

Newsflash: Those videos are fake and rely on psychological effects rather than supernatural healing powers. And evolution is a seriously solid scientific theory, unlike god which, as you said, has no scientific proof.

You have the right to believe god exists, but think about how odd it is to believe in something with no evidence. If I told you I had a pet dragon in my garage, who could eat hotdogs and convert the hotdogs to golden eggs, which the dragon would then pop out of its arse and make me rich, would you believe me?

Why or why not?

[protokol]

And I stand by my point that a supernatural being cannot be proved by science, because by its nature it is supernatural, and therefore does not follow scientific laws. This renders the being's existence impossible to prove scientifically. I'm still baffled that some people don't understand this simple concept...

How do you prove that empty space/nothing/outerspace exists? After all, you can't really grab hold of space/nothing/outerspace and analyze it chemically or electronically or something. You prove it is there by analyzing the material things within it or that it is inside of.

Same with God. We see no source for the complexity of the universe. Such complexity can't exist... except for the fact that it does. Whatever God is, the fact that the universe exists proves that God exists.

You can easily show scientific evidence that empty space/nothing exists, I already mentioned one example - adding sodium chloride to water causes the volume of water to decrease.

You can use things like vacuum chambers to electronically or chemically analyze the vacuum, for example by measuring how quickly light passes through it. Quantum theory is another example of evidence for empty space in between subatomic particles - we can predict exactly how atoms will behave, based on our knowledge of their structure (i.e. a nucleus, with electron clouds very far away, and a huge amount of empty space between).

I don't know where you've got this idea from, you don't need to be able to grab hold of something to show it exists... 

So BADecker, you understand that you can prove the existence of empty space?

[Freeman082076]

There is no scientific proof that God exist... of course we all know that scientifically no one can really prove that God exist but we cannot deny the hard to explain creation of life if where it really starts, the creation of galaxies and the void. If we cannot explain it through science we just turn around and say "God made it!".

[BADecker]

And I stand by my point that a supernatural being cannot be proved by science, because by its nature it is supernatural, and therefore does not follow scientific laws. This renders the being's existence impossible to prove scientifically. I'm still baffled that some people don't understand this simple concept...

How do you prove that empty space/nothing/outerspace exists? After all, you can't really grab hold of space/nothing/outerspace and analyze it chemically or electronically or something. You prove it is there by analyzing the material things within it or that it is inside of.

Same with God. We see no source for the complexity of the universe. Such complexity can't exist... except for the fact that it does. Whatever God is, the fact that the universe exists proves that God exists.

You can easily show scientific evidence that empty space/nothing exists, I already mentioned one example - adding sodium chloride to water causes the volume of water to decrease.

You can use things like vacuum chambers to electronically or chemically analyze the vacuum, for example by measuring how quickly light passes through it. Quantum theory is another example of evidence for empty space in between subatomic particles - we can predict exactly how atoms will behave, based on our knowledge of their structure (i.e. a nucleus, with electron clouds very far away, and a huge amount of empty space between).

I don't know where you've got this idea from, you don't need to be able to grab hold of something to show it exists... 

So BADecker, you understand that you can prove the existence of empty space?

The focus isn't proving that empty space exists. The focus is the way we prove that empty space exists. How do we prove that empty space exists?

We don't prove that empty space exists is by "grabbing hold" of empty space and analyzing it. We don't really even have a way of doing this "grabbing hold." Well, if not by "grabbing hold," then how do we prove empty space exists?

Here's how. We analyze material and energy, and the relationships between material and energy, and we can prove that empty space exists by this analysis, right?

Same with God. We analyze the relationships between material and energy in cause and effect activity, and we prove that God exists through this analysis. Complexity simply shows that God is definitely a Supreme Being. And Entropy shows that there was a beginning, which rules out that this is the way things always were.

The word "God" and its definitions are a weak word to use when considering the Supreme Being scientifically. As I have said in other posts, use "The Great First Cause," "Supreme Being," "Almighty Power," or any one of a number of words that better describe the Supreme Being.

But understand one thing. Whatever He/It is, He/It is an entity that is supremely (probably infinitely) far advanced and capable beyond what we are.

[Astargath]

And I stand by my point that a supernatural being cannot be proved by science, because by its nature it is supernatural, and therefore does not follow scientific laws. This renders the being's existence impossible to prove scientifically. I'm still baffled that some people don't understand this simple concept...

How do you prove that empty space/nothing/outerspace exists? After all, you can't really grab hold of space/nothing/outerspace and analyze it chemically or electronically or something. You prove it is there by analyzing the material things within it or that it is inside of.

Same with God. We see no source for the complexity of the universe. Such complexity can't exist... except for the fact that it does. Whatever God is, the fact that the universe exists proves that God exists.

You can easily show scientific evidence that empty space/nothing exists, I already mentioned one example - adding sodium chloride to water causes the volume of water to decrease.

You can use things like vacuum chambers to electronically or chemically analyze the vacuum, for example by measuring how quickly light passes through it. Quantum theory is another example of evidence for empty space in between subatomic particles - we can predict exactly how atoms will behave, based on our knowledge of their structure (i.e. a nucleus, with electron clouds very far away, and a huge amount of empty space between).

I don't know where you've got this idea from, you don't need to be able to grab hold of something to show it exists... 

So BADecker, you understand that you can prove the existence of empty space?

The focus isn't proving that empty space exists. The focus is the way we prove that empty space exists. How do we prove that empty space exists?

We don't prove that empty space exists is by "grabbing hold" of empty space and analyzing it. We don't really even have a way of doing this "grabbing hold." Well, if not by "grabbing hold," then how do we prove empty space exists?

Here's how. We analyze material and energy, and the relationships between material and energy, and we can prove that empty space exists by this analysis, right?

Same with God. We analyze the relationships between material and energy in cause and effect activity, and we prove that God exists through this analysis. Complexity simply shows that God is definitely a Supreme Being. And Entropy shows that there was a beginning, which rules out that this is the way things always were.

The word "God" and its definitions are a weak word to use when considering the Supreme Being scientifically. As I have said in other posts, use "The Great First Cause," "Supreme Being," "Almighty Power," or any one of a number of words that better describe the Supreme Being.

But understand one thing. Whatever He/It is, He/It is an entity that is supremely (probably infinitely) far advanced and capable beyond what we are.

However since you don't even understand entropy correctly, your assumptions can't be scientifically correct.

[DRAWDE_3691]

I was so enjoying these topic.. So many opinions..
But, still in me, I think there is no scientific explanation about God..