Scientific proof that God exists?

[bl4kjaguar]

Ultimately,
It is not the truth that makes you free. It is your possession of the power to discover the truth.

http://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/Lewontin_Review.htm

What you really want is freedom; you are a creator, not a regurgitator.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRucM7Te3Gk&feature=youtu.be

[1714678192]

1714678192

[1714678192]

1714678192

[tspacepilot]

Scientists have far greater imaginations than anyone who can give a reason, like Egypt being around 6,000 years ago.

Um, I guess if you want to take mountains of evidence from every imaginable relevant field and then discredit it with a wave of your hand as "imagination" then you have every right to do so.  The more you do this the more difficult it is to treat you as if you're serious.

If you really want to know more, all you have to do is point that web-browser of yours at the wikipedia series on ancient egypt.  There is literally mountains of evidence for dating egyptian kings/queens/dynasties.

More and more you're starting to seem like a kid with his hands on his ears and his eyes shut tight saying "no,no,no,no,no" to blockout any sound.  If that's the way you live, then you probably can stay inside this world of yours for a pretty long time.  However, I really think you're shutting yourself off from the most fascinating and intersting facts about our world.

[BADecker]

Scientists have far greater imaginations than anyone who can give a reason, like Egypt being around 6,000 years ago.

Um, I guess if you want to take mountains of evidence from every imaginable relevant field and then discredit it with a wave of your hand as "imagination" then you have every right to do so.  The more you do this the more difficult it is to treat you as if you're serious.

If you really want to know more, all you have to do is point that web-browser of yours at the wikipedia series on ancient egypt.  There is literally mountains of evidence for dating egyptian kings/queens/dynasties.

More and more you're starting to seem like a kid with his hands on his ears and his eyes shut tight saying "no,no,no,no,no" to blockout any sound.  If that's the way you live, then you probably can stay inside this world of yours for a pretty long time.  However, I really think you're shutting yourself off from the most fascinating and intersting facts about our world.

To be an investigative scientist, you have to have imagination. The problem comes about when you let you imagination cloud your interpretation.

[RodeoX]

42 pages and not a single mention of this supposed scientific proof. Can someone please link to the paper? What journal was it published in? Where are the data, the methodology, the abstract?

Come on guys, this is by far the greatest discovery in all of science. But for some reason none of the scientific websites are talking about it.

[BADecker]

42 pages and not a single mention of this supposed scientific proof. Can someone please link to the paper? What journal was it published in? Where are the data, the methodology, the abstract?

Come on guys, this is by far the greatest discovery in all of science. But for some reason none of the scientific websites are talking about it.

Comeon. It isn't 42 pages.
It's just plain old 42, the "Answer to The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything".

[the joint]

Ironically, the scientific method is based upon assumptions that are a priori invalid, and the knowledge of the invalidity of these assumptions was known before the existence of the scientific method.   One such assumption is the assertion of a Positivistic Universe.   This assumption has been known to be provably wrong for thousands of years.  

The joint, would you go ahead and lay out that 1000s-of-years-old proof for us please?

Sure.

The sameness-in-difference principle of philosophy gives us a priori knowledge that a purely Positivistic Universe is impossible.  

From Wikipedia:

 A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience (for example "All bachelors are unmarried"). Galen Strawson has stated that an a priori argument is one in which "you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don't have to do any science.

The sameness-in-difference is simple proof that no two relational entities can be absolutely different from each other; we don't need science or empirical data to figure this out.  Any attempt to assert an absolute difference invokes similarity (i.e. both entities are identical in that they share a differential relationship).

Consequently, a Positivistic Universe is impossible.  This is because a Positivistic Universe assumes that we, the subjects observing the 'objective' Universe, have no bearing on defining what the Universe is.  This is false.  You can't just talk about what the Universe would be/is like if you entirely remove all subjective information from it.  The Universe cannot be wholly defined without that information.  This is (one reason) why it is impossible for any scientific theory to be comprehensive-enough to explain everything.

[tspacepilot]

Seems to me like what you've done here is define `a priori`, which is fine.

Then you go on to say that pure positivism leads to a paradox.  Ok.

I don't see where you've connected this to any 1000s-of-years-old ideas and what you wrote certainly doesn't look like a proof.

Anyway, I'm not one of the people who said that science can explain everything.  But this is a far cry from what you said above "scientific method is based on invalid assumptions".

For me, there's a whole lot of distance between "science can explain everything" (which I reject) and "science can't explain anything" (which I also reject).

[coinbuyer2580]

Is this scientific proof? https://m.imgur.com/r/atheism/sJm6EiQ

The logic string proposed here is fundamentally flawed. God by definition is omnipotent, so if the hypothesis begins with "God exists and is omnipotent" the answer to any rule imposed to deny the existence of god can be explained through omnipotence. An Omnipotent entity would not be governed by any laws and could act in ways that contradict each other.

I want to add that I do not follow any organized religion but my opinion is slightly biased based on where I was born and my unwavering faith in science.

[BADecker]

Is this scientific proof? https://m.imgur.com/r/atheism/sJm6EiQ

image

The logic string proposed here is fundamentally flawed. God by definition is omnipotent, so if the hypothesis begins with "God exists and is omnipotent" the answer to any rule imposed to deny the existence of god can be explained through omnipotence. An Omnipotent entity would not be governed by any laws and could act in ways that contradict each other.

I want to add that I do not follow any organized religion but my opinion is slightly biased based on where I was born and my unwavering faith in science.

To throw a wrench into our thinking...

Might God want a challenge? Perhaps just for sport? Yet one that harms nobody, yet is a true challenge? So, how would God create this challenge?

God knows everything except for one little thing. God made us in such a way that He doesn't quite know the innermost, deepest workings of each human heart... especially the hearts of those who believe in Him. Not that He couldn't. But that He hides it from Himself in such a way that there is challenge for Him.

This is way more complicated than the way I'm saying it, so don't jump down my throat for not writing a book, and for not describing something, clearly, that might not even be describable in English.

God is good, all the time. So, the thing that he made to challenge Himself, is also something that is good. It's good for us, and it is good for Him. And even when we try to fight Him, the challenge has become more interesting for Him, though He never wanted it that way. But now that it IS that way (we attempt to fight God), he has found a method to make it all good for any of us who want to accept Him.

Salvation is exciting. Salvation is wonderful. Yet the destruction of those who will not accept salvation, is something that will be long gone in the great future that is awaiting those of us who accept salvation.

[tspacepilot]

Damn I wish I could ignore this thread now.  It's gone from specious claims about scientific proofs to pure, unadulerated, schmoozeball evangelism.  I heard waaaay too much of this kinda nonsense when I was a child.

[Lethn]

Damn I wish I could ignore this thread now.  It's gone from specious claims about scientific proofs to pure, unadulerated, schmoozeball evangelism.  I heard waaaay too much of this kinda nonsense when I was a child.

We need all the crazies located in one place so we know who they are, this is like the Christian version of ISIS on the internet.

Yeah, I did just compare you assholes to ISIS, deal with it.

[coinbuyer2580]

Damn I wish I could ignore this thread now.  It's gone from specious claims about scientific proofs to pure, unadulerated, schmoozeball evangelism.  I heard waaaay too much of this kinda nonsense when I was a child.

We need all the crazies located in one place so we know who they are, this is like the Christian version of ISIS on the internet.

Yeah, I did just compare you assholes to ISIS, deal with it.

Faith and spiritualism are innately human, it has been with us for as long as we have had the ability to ponder existence. There has never been a human civilization in recorded history without some sort of "religion". Atheism and Darwinism one could argue, are also faiths.

To group people together with extreme fundamentalist psychopaths, simply because they have faith in a higher power is in and of itself a form of extremism.

You and people like you are what is wrong with the world.

[tspacepilot]

Faith and spiritualism are innately human, it has been with us for as long as we have had the ability to ponder existence. There has never been a human civilization in recorded history without some sort of "religion". Atheism and Darwinism one could argue, are also faiths.

That "faith and spirtualism are innately human" is an interesting hypothesis.  The evidence you present that "there has never been a human civilization in recorded history without some sort of 'religion'" is interesting, and seems to bear on the question, but IMO, you need to go a lot farther to show innateness. 

Consider, for example, that you might find that every human civilization in recorded history has the word "fish" somewhere in their records.  This doesn't mean that humans are innately programmed to write "fish" when they write.  It's just as likely that writing "fish" is a product of our environments as of our biology.  Also, consider that there are vast numbers of humans who have lived outside of "recorded history".  It may be that "religion and spiritualism" are as much an aspect of the organization of cultures who write things as an aspect of the biology of the humans who wrote them.  Finally, you might not be right about your claim that "every human civilization in recorded history has some sort of 'religion'".  Seems like that claim depends a lot on your definition of religion.

[coinbuyer2580]

Faith and spiritualism are innately human, it has been with us for as long as we have had the ability to ponder existence. There has never been a human civilization in recorded history without some sort of "religion". Atheism and Darwinism one could argue, are also faiths.

That "faith and spirtualism are innately human" is an interesting hypothesis.  The evidence you present that "there has never been a human civilization in recorded history without some sort of 'religion'" is interesting, and seems to bear on the question, but IMO, you need to go a lot farther to show innateness. 

Consider, for example, that you might find that every human civilization in recorded history has the word "fish" somewhere in their records.  This doesn't mean that humans are innately programmed to write "fish" when they write.  It's just as likely that writing "fish" is a product of our environments as of our biology.  Also, consider that there are vast numbers of humans who have lived outside of "recorded history".  It may be that "religion and spiritualism" are as much an aspect of the organization of cultures who write things as an aspect of the biology of the humans who wrote them.  Finally, you might not be right about your claim that "every human civilization in recorded history has some sort of 'religion'".  Seems like that claim depends a lot on your definition of religion.

First, Thank you for an intelligently written rebuttal. One would have to identify religion as a broad spectrum word encompassing any belief requiring faith. Its true that religion would not be a quality inherited through biological systems but to be humans is to be more than the sum of your parts. Can philosophical predispositions be argued to be genetically inherited traits? Unfortunately this is out of our realm of understanding at present, one can only assume. I challenge you to present to me any civilization that did not have a religion at its core. Again by religion I mean any spirituality requiring faith IE Ancestor Veneration, Indigenous spiritualism, monotheism. Essentially any belief where by morality, ethics and worship are taught by means of storytelling. I am not calling you out here, I would really love to research a civilization that existed without religion it would be amazing to find out how long they existed for and how successful they were.

Obviously were I do not cite a source I am expressing an opinion so take it for the conjecture that it may be. I am not an expert of Theology or Anthropology.

[tspacepilot]

I think that by defining religion as any belief system that requires "faith" you've just pushed the question down a level.  Now we have to know what you mean by "faith".   My definition of religion for this kind of survey would have to include some sort of ritual practice.  But again, I think it's really hard to draw a line here.  I mean, ritually say "fine thank you" when someone says to me "hello how are you".   Yet, I wouldn't consider this practice to be religious.

Like you, I'm no expert in theology or anthropology.  However, I tend to think that most people underestimate the range of human variation in culture and practice and experience.  Perhaps relevant to this discussion, I have read a lot about how aboriginal cultures of the pacific northwest may not have had a distiction between the "natural" and "supernatural" as we have.  See, for example, Wayne Suttles "Coast Salish Essays".

[bl4kjaguar]

There is some support for the idea that religion, at its most basic or elementary level, is innately human:

Re-think the 'elementary form of religious life.' Not necessarily ‘the sacred’ or ‘spiritual beings’ but a “particular form of engagement with the non-empirical” may be “the most widespread and most common form of religion” on which all of the higher, more formal, more institutional versions of religion stand. But at this basic or elementary level, religion is characterized by three features that we tend to deny and overlook in ‘official’ religion: “the situational, unsystematic nature of belief; an intimate association with the non-empirical; and an attempt to respond to pragmatic questions concerned with daily life and coping with everyday problems”. I think this perspective reflects the emerging focus of anthropology and the other social sciences

http://wings.buffalo.edu/ARD/cgi/showme.cgi?keycode=5159

I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can't be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people---the best people, the most enlightened people---do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Secular_religions#Does_secular_religion_exist.3F

The editors at RationalWiki think that the definition of religion "invariably" includes a specific kind of belief, but this is not the consensus in the social sciences; rather, "every person holds (and perhaps indeed needs) a set of values and morals and makes their judgments about actions and people based on this."

So basically, a religion is just a belief or opinion about something non-empirical.

[username18333]

One can render determinations about others out of moral nihilism, that is, render wholly arbitrary determinations upon them.

Considering that, how is "religion" necessary?

[coinbuyer2580]

I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can't be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people---the best people, the most enlightened people---do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.

I appreciate this quote, I think it better illustrates what I was trying to express. Thank you for posting it.

[bl4kjaguar]

One can render determinations about others out of moral nihilism, that is, render wholly arbitrary determinations upon them.

Man's humanness did not emerge by refusing Man's animal heritage, but upon an extension of what it is.

If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. Man is hardly likely to render arbitrary determinations upon himself!

[bl4kjaguar]

One can render determinations about others out of moral nihilism, that is, render wholly arbitrary determinations upon them.

Man's humanness did not emerge by refusing Man's animal heritage, but upon an extension of what it is.

If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. Man is hardly likely to render arbitrary determinations upon himself!

Also, section on Wikipedia is enlightening:

Jack David Eller, an anthropologist, has noted that most cultures do not have beliefs in gods and stated, "Surprisingly, atheism is not the opposite or lack, let alone the enemy or religion, but is the most common form of religion." (Italics his) [42]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_atheism&oldid=521473812#Atheism_as_faith

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism#Atheism_as_faith

The mind will not endure a void...

For that reason, before we take from our establishment the natural, human means of estimation and give it up to contempt, as you have done, and in doing it have incurred the penalties you well deserve to suffer, we desire that some other may be presented to us in the place of it. We shall then form our judgment.