Scientific proof that God exists?

[the joint]

All “SAVIORS” are by identification and definition “PHONY”.

If there is going to be any “saving” going on--you will do it for yourself.

Christ has taken responsibility for YOU?

So how do you expect to save yourself? 

Nothing we can do in our own power is enough to pay the penalty for our sins, so I am very thankful that Christ has taken my sins and paid the penalty for them.  I just don't understand why others cannot see what a gift that is.

Assuming for a second that atonement is true, the unfortunate result is likely apathy.  BADecker epitomizes this apathy as he is too lazy to incorporate new information into his existing cognitive schemas.  If people live with the idea that someone else is responsible for their wrongdoings, then along with it comes the idea that people aren't responsible for their right doings.  It becomes an excuse to not try to do or be better.  Couple that with an undeserved sense of righteousness and self-importance that comes from believing you have privileged access to some divine knowledge and you have the makings a perfect sociopath, e.g. BADecker who has no problem condemning people with a smile on his face.  It's perversion of morality to the highest degree.

When you believe that an apology to God is all that's needed to reconcile an entire life of wrongdoing, you get people that commit hideous atrocities (e.g. condemning homosexuals for being born a certain way) with no intention to stop them.

[1713566018]

1713566018

[protokol]

@the joint

I think it was earlier in this thread that you were discussing the FSM analogy and how it was invalid when referring to a monotheistic god, as a monotheistic god relies on a priori as opposed to a posteriori knowledge. I've been thinking about this a little and I still don't fully understand where you're coming from, I was hoping you could be a bit more specific as to what sort of a priori knowledge a monotheistic god would require, as opposed to a polytheistic god.
 

The odds of us evolving the way we did are pretty irrelevant, as with how large our universe is there are so many places that it could have happened.  If you believe in the big bang/big crunch theory then there could have been a bunch of times that no life was formed and the universe was empty, but we weren't there to comment on it those times, only the ones something did happen.

Now this is a different topic, but I think what cooldgamer said here is key to debunking what a lot of creationists believe - that "the diversity of life and the fact that we exist is so unlikely (even impossible) that it could only have occurred with the help of an intelligent designer."

Although I don't believe in the "big crunch" theory (this has been disproved by the Hubble telescope/redshift analysis recognising that the current Universe is actually accelerating outwards rather than slowing down, leading to the "dark energy" theory), I believe this idea that it could only have happened by design to be a logical fallacy. We don't even need multiple universes for this to be a valid point.

We can only comment on our current existence as this is the only data point we have. As far as we know, of the millions of life-forms we know to exist (let alone the ones that may or may not exist elsewhere in the Universe), humans are the only life-form to actually advance enough to question our own existence. If we had more than one data point (for example if we found self-aware life on another planet), then we could start to estimate the probabilities. Until then, we can only say "It's quite unlikely, and probably requires a planet to be X distance from a star, the planet to be tilted to create seasons/climate patterns, an atom like carbon/silicon that can form many atomic bonds and complex molecules etc. etc."

To say that, for example, a cell is so complex that it 100% MUST have been designed, is fallacious in my eyes. And when we look at life in detail, we find certain characteristics that certainly point to natural selection - ways in which we are flawed by evolution. Things like, why do humans have an appendix and a coccyx, the path of the recurrent laryngeal nerve, blind mole rats, wings on flightless birds etc.

Now of course all of this (exhaustive though it may be) does not prove evolution 100%, it certainly supports the previous idea that creation is not the only possible way that all this diversity could have occurred, and that evolution from a single common ancestor is certainly possible, if not probable.

[bl4kjaguar]

And when we look at life in detail, we find certain characteristics that certainly point to natural selection - ways in which we are flawed by evolution.

It would be dishonest to fail to mention the characteristics that certainly DO NOT point to natural selection. It is only fair that our discussion incorporates all of the biological facts.

Evidence for Creation by Outside Intervention

Darwinists, Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents are unable to explain anomalies in the emergence of domesticated plants, animals and humans.

Firstly, wild ancestors for many (but not all) domestic plants do seem apparent. Secondly, most domesticated versions did appear from 10,000 to 5,000 years ago. Thirdly, the humans alive at that time were primitive barbarians. Fourthly, in the past 5,000 years, no plants have been domesticated that are nearly as valuable as the dozens that were "created" by the earliest farmers all around the world. Put an equal sign after those four factors and it definitely does not add up to any kind of Darwinian model.

In short, there is not a snowball's chance that this happened as botanists claim it did.

[protokol]

And when we look at life in detail, we find certain characteristics that certainly point to natural selection - ways in which we are flawed by evolution.

It would be dishonest to fail to mention the characteristics that certainly DO NOT point to natural selection. It is only fair that our discussion incorporates all of the biological facts.

Evidence for Creation by Outside Intervention

Darwinists, Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents are unable to explain anomalies in the emergence of domesticated plants, animals and humans.

Firstly, wild ancestors for many (but not all) domestic plants do seem apparent. Secondly, most domesticated versions did appear from 10,000 to 5,000 years ago. Thirdly, the humans alive at that time were primitive barbarians. Fourthly, in the past 5,000 years, no plants have been domesticated that are nearly as valuable as the dozens that were "created" by the earliest farmers all around the world. Put an equal sign after those four factors and it definitely does not add up to any kind of Darwinian model.

In short, there is not a snowball's chance that this happened as botanists claim it did.

From what I can gather, the guy who wrote this is comparing modern domesticated plants with older wild plants, and saying that there was a very drastic jump between the two. Is he implying that, rather than an "intelligent designer", there was an "intelligent tweaker" that changed the plants very quickly or created new plants alongside the wild ones that already existed? It's a poorly written article in my opinion, I'm finding it hard to see the points the author tries to make (although they may be valid).

I shall have another look in the morning, I'd appreciate a more coherent source if you have one, cheers  

[BitChick]

All “SAVIORS” are by identification and definition “PHONY”.

If there is going to be any “saving” going on--you will do it for yourself.

Christ has taken responsibility for YOU?

So how do you expect to save yourself?  

Nothing we can do in our own power is enough to pay the penalty for our sins, so I am very thankful that Christ has taken my sins and paid the penalty for them.  I just don't understand why others cannot see what a gift that is.

Assuming for a second that atonement is true, the unfortunate result is likely apathy.  BADecker epitomizes this apathy as he is too lazy to incorporate new information into his existing cognitive schemas.  If people live with the idea that someone else is responsible for their wrongdoings, then along with it comes the idea that people aren't responsible for their right doings.  It becomes an excuse to not try to do or be better.  Couple that with an undeserved sense of righteousness and self-importance that comes from believing you have privileged access to some divine knowledge and you have the makings a perfect sociopath, e.g. BADecker who has no problem condemning people with a smile on his face.  It's perversion of morality to the highest degree.

When you believe that an apology to God is all that's needed to reconcile an entire life of wrongdoing, you get people that commit hideous atrocities (e.g. condemning homosexuals for being born a certain way) with no intention to stop them.

I will agree that there are some that believe a simple prayer or apology is all that is required and that they get a "free pass" to commit atrocities thinking that they are somehow covered by God's grace.  Some people refer to this as "cheap grace" and most would say a person that does that is not really converted.  God looks at our hearts and He says that He "knows a tree by it's fruit."  The easiest way to tell if someone is truly a Christian is to check and see if they have evidence of the fruit of God's Spirit in their lives:  Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, faithfulness, self-control.  If someone just says a prayer and continues to sin without any remorse they are not saved.  They are not a true follower of Christ.  How could someone that has truly grasped the gravity of their sins continue to hammer nails into the hands of Jesus on the cross?  This is in essence what is taking place.  Granted, it isn't like we never sin, but with each sin comes a feeling of remorse and repentance and prayer that God will continue to work out the selfish desires that once ruled our hearts and minds and fill us with the things He wants us to dwell on.  It is a constant journey of wrestling with sin which will take place until we are finally freed from this sinful state we are living in, but one in which a true Christian will strive to be like Jesus more and more each day and that is why the fruit will finally show the "tree" for what it really is inside.

[X7]

Well I personally am fine with abortion, and there really is no way to judge whose idea is right or wrong unless we're going by the bible.  The eternal hell isn't a valid argument, just trying to scare people into believing.  I don't need a savior, doing just fine, thanks

Have a little mercy. Look at all the fun you have had in your life. And you want to allow others to deny that to still others? Have a little mercy.



EDIT: You don't need a savior? Does this mean that you know for a fact that you are going to live forever without one?

Until the fetus is able to sense things it's just the same as having never been created IMO.  No woman should be forced to give birth to something that she doesn't want.  It could have been from rape, a broken condom, or she just thought she was prepared but backed out at the last second.  I think we should value the life of a human more than a clump of cells that can't feel anything.  Even when it can feel, it does not have a right to life until it is able to live on it's own.  It's like a vampire that you're letting consensually suck your blood, if you want it to stop then you have a right to make it stop.  I don't support abortion, I support the right of a woman to choose what is right for her body and life.  (flaming in 3... 2... 1...)

I don't think I'm going to live forever without one, I think I'm going to be dead after that final burst of DMT wears off and my brain is inactive.  Same as before I was born.

I completely agree with human rights. We should not harm others. But where the choice is between a woman and her fetus, it is two lives, even though they inhabit much of the same space. That lump of cells is not as unfeeling as one might think.

there is truth in this

[the joint]

@the joint

I think it was earlier in this thread that you were discussing the FSM analogy and how it was invalid when referring to a monotheistic god, as a monotheistic god relies on a priori as opposed to a posteriori knowledge. I've been thinking about this a little and I still don't fully understand where you're coming from, I was hoping you could be a bit more specific as to what sort of a priori knowledge a monotheistic god would require, as opposed to a polytheistic god.

Yeah, that was either this thread or the 'Christian BS' thread lol.

Yes, I believe the FSM analogy is invalid when referring to a monotheistic god, but would be applicable to polytheistic gods.

The defining characteristics constituting polytheistic gods are such that they described as finite.  They are stated to be real and inhabiting a real space that is greater than they are.  They are real actors in a real Universe, and so accordingly there should be real evidence of their finite existence if they do indeed exist.  Accordingly, FSM analogies are relevant to polytheistic gods.  The general purpose of the FSM argument is to demonstrate that it's silly to believe in the existence of something simply because you imagine that it could exist.  We can imagine polytheistic gods to exist, and for imaginary reference we can look to, for example, the portrayal of ancient Greek gods.  

The defining characteristics of a monotheistic god are very different.  Monotheistic gods are not finite.  They are described as omnipotent, and accordingly there is nothing greater or more comprehensive than a monotheistic god (i.e. if monotheistic gods are not bound by Universal law, then it follows that they operate at an equal or higher order of operative syntax).  Because monotheistic gods are at least as comprehensive as the real universe, it is impossible to imagine a monotheistic god, and therefore impossible to ever find evidence to constitute proof for the existence of such an entity.  Specifically, it is impossible because our scope of observation would need to be at least as comprehensive as the entire Universe.

As a result, the question posed in the subject heading of this thread (i.e. " Scientific proof that God exists?" can be answered in two words -- "Not possible."

The take-home message from everything written to this point is this:  It's a terribly unsound conclusion to deny of the existence of God because of a lack of evidence, because whether or not God exists there will (and can) never be any evidence for it.

Now, with regards to 'a priori' and 'a posteriori' knowledge:  Polythestic gods as well as the FSM could be proven true via 'a posteriori' knowledge (i.e. by way of evidence).  In other words, we can imagine a scenario in which we would know for certain by way of observation that polytheistic gods or the FSM exist.  If a giant monster made of spaghetti flew into your room through an open window, you would be able to claim proof for the existence of the FSM.  If some jacked guy wearing a diaper started throwing down lightning bolts everywhere, you would be able to claim proof for Zeus.

There is no possible way, however, to imagine a scenario in which we would know for certain by way of observation that a monotheistic god exists, so looking to 'a posteriori' knowledge for an answer will never get you anywhere.  So, how do we determine if a monotheistic god exists?  Well, we can look to 'a priori' knowledge for an answer.  'A priori" knowledge is independent of observation, and therefore is grounded in the abstract.  A math proof lends to 'a priori' knowledge.  A sound logical argument lends to 'a prior' knowledge.  Axioms are 'a priori' knowledge.

The debate about the existence of God should be a logical one founded upon sound ideas.  So, the type of 'a priori' proof needed for the existence of god is a theory that demonstrates that God either must or must not exist by logical necessity.  But, it would be a mistake to just take some arbitrary definition of God and prove whether that definition exists (to do so would be to commit an inductive fallacy, for how would you ever know that you were right about the thing that you just proved?). So, it's probably not the best route to even start with any preconceived notions about god.

Instead, I think a better approach would be to start with a theory of theories, as such a theory would explain not only all other theories that have, are, or ever will be, but also itself.   Such a theory could never be superseded or dismissed by any other, since any other theory that attempts to explain the 'theory of theories' would actually be that same theory!

To answer your question about what 'a priori' knowledge would constitute proof for the existence of a monotheistic god, I think that if a theory of theories demonstrates that theories -- which are inherently mental and must require an intelligent theorizer -- are solely responsible for all real physical and abstract phenomena including other theories, then I think this is proof for a monotheistic god.

[(oYo)]

@the joint

I think it was earlier in this thread that you were discussing the FSM analogy and how it was invalid when referring to a monotheistic god, as a monotheistic god relies on a priori as opposed to a posteriori knowledge. I've been thinking about this a little and I still don't fully understand where you're coming from, I was hoping you could be a bit more specific as to what sort of a priori knowledge a monotheistic god would require, as opposed to a polytheistic god.

Yeah, that was either this thread or the 'Christian BS' thread lol.

Yes, I believe the FSM analogy is invalid when referring to a monotheistic god, but would be applicable to polytheistic gods.

The defining characteristics constituting polytheistic gods are such that they described as finite.  They are stated to be real and inhabiting a real space that is greater than they are.  They are real actors in a real Universe, and so accordingly there should be real evidence of their finite existence if they do indeed exist.  Accordingly, FSM analogies are relevant to polytheistic gods.  The general purpose of the FSM argument is to demonstrate that it's silly to believe in the existence of something simply because you imagine that it could exist.  We can imagine polytheistic gods to exist, and for imaginary reference we can look to, for example, the portrayal of ancient Greek gods.  

The defining characteristics of a monotheistic god are very different.  Monotheistic gods are not finite.  They are described as omnipotent, and accordingly there is nothing greater or more comprehensive than a monotheistic god (i.e. if monotheistic gods are not bound by Universal law, then it follows that they operate at an equal or higher order of operative syntax).  Because monotheistic gods are at least as comprehensive as the real universe, it is impossible to imagine a monotheistic god, and therefore impossible to ever find evidence to constitute proof for the existence of such an entity.  Specifically, it is impossible because our scope of observation would need to be at least as comprehensive as the entire Universe.

As a result, the question posed in the subject heading of this thread (i.e. " Scientific proof that God exists?" can be answered in two words -- "Not possible."

The take-home message from everything written to this point is this:  It's a terribly unsound conclusion to deny of the existence of God because of a lack of evidence, because whether or not God exists there will (and can) never be any evidence for it.

Now, with regards to 'a priori' and 'a posteriori' knowledge:  Polythestic gods as well as the FSM could be proven true via 'a posteriori' knowledge (i.e. by way of evidence).  In other words, we can imagine a scenario in which we would know for certain by way of observation that polytheistic gods or the FSM exist.  If a giant monster made of spaghetti flew into your room through an open window, you would be able to claim proof for the existence of the FSM.  If some jacked guy wearing a diaper started throwing down lightning bolts everywhere, you would be able to claim proof for Zeus.

There is no possible way, however, to imagine a scenario in which we would know for certain by way of observation that a monotheistic god exists, so looking to 'a posteriori' knowledge for an answer will never get you anywhere.  So, how do we determine if a monotheistic god exists?  Well, we can look to 'a priori' knowledge for an answer.  'A priori" knowledge is independent of observation, and therefore is grounded in the abstract.  A math proof lends to 'a priori' knowledge.  A sound logical argument lends to 'a prior' knowledge.  Axioms are 'a priori' knowledge.

The debate about the existence of God should be a logical one founded upon sound ideas.  So, the type of 'a priori' proof needed for the existence of god is a theory that demonstrates that God either must or must not exist by logical necessity.  But, it would be a mistake to just take some arbitrary definition of God and prove whether that definition exists (to do so would be to commit an inductive fallacy, for how would you ever know that you were right about the thing that you just proved?). So, it's probably not the best route to even start with any preconceived notions about god.

Instead, I think a better approach would be to start with a theory of theories, as such a theory would explain not only all other theories that have, are, or ever will be, but also itself.   Such a theory could never be superseded or dismissed by any other, since any other theory that attempts to explain the 'theory of theories' would actually be that same theory!

To answer your question about what 'a priori' knowledge would constitute proof for the existence of a monotheistic god, I think that if a theory of theories demonstrates that theories -- which are inherently mental and must require an intelligent theorizer -- are solely responsible for all real physical and abstract phenomena including other theories, then I think this is proof for a monotheistic god.

Your stance is based upon the assumption that a monotheistic god cannot choose to take physical form (ie. a burning bush) and in fact keep such a form if it so desires indefinately. If we all agree that a truely omnipotent being could do anything if it so wills it, then it must be true that this includes taking form of a teapot or FSM. Although we might believe it to be improbable or even rediculous that god would actually choose to do this, it does not make it impossible. Therefore, I believe the FSM analogy is acceptable, however unpalatable.

[BADecker]

I agree with much of this, maybe most of it. A couple of questions that I have revolve around these points.

The take-home message from everything written to this point is this:  It's a terribly unsound conclusion to deny of the existence of God because of a lack of evidence, because whether or not God exists there will (and can) never be any evidence for it.

My question here is, can't there be some evidence, even though it is not conclusive evidence?

There is no possible way, however, to imagine a scenario in which we would know for certain by way of observation that a monotheistic god exists, so looking to 'a posteriori' knowledge for an answer will never get you anywhere.  So, how do we determine if a monotheistic god exists?  Well, we can look to 'a priori' knowledge for an answer.  'A priori" knowledge is independent of observation, and therefore is grounded in the abstract.  A math proof lends to 'a priori' knowledge.  A sound logical argument lends to 'a prior' knowledge.  Axioms are 'a priori' knowledge.

Isn't the machine quality of the universe and life, especially when the "machinery" is advanced as it appears, and there is the presence of simple, almost non-machinery as well, a consideration?

The fact that there are tremendously "advanced" forms of complex machinery (life) in the universe...

and the fact that there is absolutely nothing but pure guesswork regarding how these advanced "machines" came about (because they are so advanced that we simply don't have enough of a handle on the idea to do more than guess)...

combined with our own active operating machine making activities that show that (usually) the more advanced machine makers among us make more advanced machines - remember, all of our machine-making abilities come from what we observe and use as already found in the universe, and we are really only scratching the surface in the amounts and ways that we use the machines of the universe...

at this stage of our development, wouldn't this be evidence for a real God?

As you say, it wouldn't be proof. Yet I would consider it to be a gigantically large chunk of evidence, evidence so great as to get me to start examining any records that I could to see if the "probable" God hadn't left us a more direct and clearer record of Himself.

Consider how great the nervous system and brain combination of a human being are from the Isaac Asimov sci-fi quote at: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=761592.msg9656564#msg9656564 .

[the joint]

@the joint

I think it was earlier in this thread that you were discussing the FSM analogy and how it was invalid when referring to a monotheistic god, as a monotheistic god relies on a priori as opposed to a posteriori knowledge. I've been thinking about this a little and I still don't fully understand where you're coming from, I was hoping you could be a bit more specific as to what sort of a priori knowledge a monotheistic god would require, as opposed to a polytheistic god.

Yeah, that was either this thread or the 'Christian BS' thread lol.

Yes, I believe the FSM analogy is invalid when referring to a monotheistic god, but would be applicable to polytheistic gods.

The defining characteristics constituting polytheistic gods are such that they described as finite.  They are stated to be real and inhabiting a real space that is greater than they are.  They are real actors in a real Universe, and so accordingly there should be real evidence of their finite existence if they do indeed exist.  Accordingly, FSM analogies are relevant to polytheistic gods.  The general purpose of the FSM argument is to demonstrate that it's silly to believe in the existence of something simply because you imagine that it could exist.  We can imagine polytheistic gods to exist, and for imaginary reference we can look to, for example, the portrayal of ancient Greek gods.  

The defining characteristics of a monotheistic god are very different.  Monotheistic gods are not finite.  They are described as omnipotent, and accordingly there is nothing greater or more comprehensive than a monotheistic god (i.e. if monotheistic gods are not bound by Universal law, then it follows that they operate at an equal or higher order of operative syntax).  Because monotheistic gods are at least as comprehensive as the real universe, it is impossible to imagine a monotheistic god, and therefore impossible to ever find evidence to constitute proof for the existence of such an entity.  Specifically, it is impossible because our scope of observation would need to be at least as comprehensive as the entire Universe.

As a result, the question posed in the subject heading of this thread (i.e. " Scientific proof that God exists?" can be answered in two words -- "Not possible."

The take-home message from everything written to this point is this:  It's a terribly unsound conclusion to deny of the existence of God because of a lack of evidence, because whether or not God exists there will (and can) never be any evidence for it.

Now, with regards to 'a priori' and 'a posteriori' knowledge:  Polythestic gods as well as the FSM could be proven true via 'a posteriori' knowledge (i.e. by way of evidence).  In other words, we can imagine a scenario in which we would know for certain by way of observation that polytheistic gods or the FSM exist.  If a giant monster made of spaghetti flew into your room through an open window, you would be able to claim proof for the existence of the FSM.  If some jacked guy wearing a diaper started throwing down lightning bolts everywhere, you would be able to claim proof for Zeus.

There is no possible way, however, to imagine a scenario in which we would know for certain by way of observation that a monotheistic god exists, so looking to 'a posteriori' knowledge for an answer will never get you anywhere.  So, how do we determine if a monotheistic god exists?  Well, we can look to 'a priori' knowledge for an answer.  'A priori" knowledge is independent of observation, and therefore is grounded in the abstract.  A math proof lends to 'a priori' knowledge.  A sound logical argument lends to 'a prior' knowledge.  Axioms are 'a priori' knowledge.

The debate about the existence of God should be a logical one founded upon sound ideas.  So, the type of 'a priori' proof needed for the existence of god is a theory that demonstrates that God either must or must not exist by logical necessity.  But, it would be a mistake to just take some arbitrary definition of God and prove whether that definition exists (to do so would be to commit an inductive fallacy, for how would you ever know that you were right about the thing that you just proved?). So, it's probably not the best route to even start with any preconceived notions about god.

Instead, I think a better approach would be to start with a theory of theories, as such a theory would explain not only all other theories that have, are, or ever will be, but also itself.   Such a theory could never be superseded or dismissed by any other, since any other theory that attempts to explain the 'theory of theories' would actually be that same theory!

To answer your question about what 'a priori' knowledge would constitute proof for the existence of a monotheistic god, I think that if a theory of theories demonstrates that theories -- which are inherently mental and must require an intelligent theorizer -- are solely responsible for all real physical and abstract phenomena including other theories, then I think this is proof for a monotheistic god.

Your stance is based upon the preconception that a monotheistic god cannot choose to take physical form (ie. a burning bush) and in fact keep such a form if it so desires indefinately. If we all agree that a truely omnipotent being could do anything if it so wills it, then it must be true that this includes taking form of a teapot or FSM. Although we might believe it to be improbable or even rediculous that god would actually choose to do this, it does not make it impossible. Therefore, I believe the FSM analogy is acceptable, however unpalatable.

Nope, it's still not acceptable.

I make no such preconception.  In the latter half of my referenced post, I even state it's probably not a good idea to have any preconceived notions about God at all.  Still, you are correct that an omnipotent entity would be a free entity, even free to be able to force constraints upon itself such that it is infinite and finite simultaneously. Jesus is an example.

Still, it doesn't matter.  It doesn't matter with regards to my position because I asserted that 1) no empirical proof of a monotheistic god could ever exist, and that 2) there needn't be any.

If we witnessed a talking, burning bush, you can't conclude from that that it is a monotheistic god, even if it tells you "I'm God!" a million times.

[cooldgamer]

Isn't the machine quality of the universe and life, especially when the "machinery" is advanced as it appears, and there is the presence of simple, almost non-machinery as well, a consideration?

The fact that there are tremendously "advanced" forms of complex machinery (life) in the universe...

and the fact that there is absolutely nothing but pure guesswork regarding how these advanced "machines" came about (because they are so advanced that we simply don't have enough of a handle on the idea to do more than guess)...

combined with our own active operating machine making activities that show that (usually) the more advanced machine makers among us make more advanced machines - remember, all of our machine-making abilities come from what we observe and use as already found in the universe, and we are really only scratching the surface in the amounts and ways that we use the machines of the universe...

at this stage of our development, wouldn't this be evidence for a real God?

As you say, it wouldn't be proof. Yet I would consider it to be a gigantically large chunk of evidence, evidence so great as to get me to start examining any records that I could to see if the "probable" God hadn't left us a more direct and clearer record of Himself.

Consider how great the nervous system and brain combination of a human being are from the Isaac Asimov sci-fi quote at: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=761592.msg9656564#msg9656564 .

Nope, we've gone over this a ton already.  Complex life is in no way proof for a god.  Something more complex would have had to make your god, and on and on and on...

[(oYo)]

@the joint

I think it was earlier in this thread that you were discussing the FSM analogy and how it was invalid when referring to a monotheistic god, as a monotheistic god relies on a priori as opposed to a posteriori knowledge. I've been thinking about this a little and I still don't fully understand where you're coming from, I was hoping you could be a bit more specific as to what sort of a priori knowledge a monotheistic god would require, as opposed to a polytheistic god.

Yeah, that was either this thread or the 'Christian BS' thread lol.

Yes, I believe the FSM analogy is invalid when referring to a monotheistic god, but would be applicable to polytheistic gods.

The defining characteristics constituting polytheistic gods are such that they described as finite.  They are stated to be real and inhabiting a real space that is greater than they are.  They are real actors in a real Universe, and so accordingly there should be real evidence of their finite existence if they do indeed exist.  Accordingly, FSM analogies are relevant to polytheistic gods.  The general purpose of the FSM argument is to demonstrate that it's silly to believe in the existence of something simply because you imagine that it could exist.  We can imagine polytheistic gods to exist, and for imaginary reference we can look to, for example, the portrayal of ancient Greek gods.  

The defining characteristics of a monotheistic god are very different.  Monotheistic gods are not finite.  They are described as omnipotent, and accordingly there is nothing greater or more comprehensive than a monotheistic god (i.e. if monotheistic gods are not bound by Universal law, then it follows that they operate at an equal or higher order of operative syntax).  Because monotheistic gods are at least as comprehensive as the real universe, it is impossible to imagine a monotheistic god, and therefore impossible to ever find evidence to constitute proof for the existence of such an entity.  Specifically, it is impossible because our scope of observation would need to be at least as comprehensive as the entire Universe.

As a result, the question posed in the subject heading of this thread (i.e. " Scientific proof that God exists?" can be answered in two words -- "Not possible."

The take-home message from everything written to this point is this:  It's a terribly unsound conclusion to deny of the existence of God because of a lack of evidence, because whether or not God exists there will (and can) never be any evidence for it.

Now, with regards to 'a priori' and 'a posteriori' knowledge:  Polythestic gods as well as the FSM could be proven true via 'a posteriori' knowledge (i.e. by way of evidence).  In other words, we can imagine a scenario in which we would know for certain by way of observation that polytheistic gods or the FSM exist.  If a giant monster made of spaghetti flew into your room through an open window, you would be able to claim proof for the existence of the FSM.  If some jacked guy wearing a diaper started throwing down lightning bolts everywhere, you would be able to claim proof for Zeus.

There is no possible way, however, to imagine a scenario in which we would know for certain by way of observation that a monotheistic god exists, so looking to 'a posteriori' knowledge for an answer will never get you anywhere.  So, how do we determine if a monotheistic god exists?  Well, we can look to 'a priori' knowledge for an answer.  'A priori" knowledge is independent of observation, and therefore is grounded in the abstract.  A math proof lends to 'a priori' knowledge.  A sound logical argument lends to 'a prior' knowledge.  Axioms are 'a priori' knowledge.

The debate about the existence of God should be a logical one founded upon sound ideas.  So, the type of 'a priori' proof needed for the existence of god is a theory that demonstrates that God either must or must not exist by logical necessity.  But, it would be a mistake to just take some arbitrary definition of God and prove whether that definition exists (to do so would be to commit an inductive fallacy, for how would you ever know that you were right about the thing that you just proved?). So, it's probably not the best route to even start with any preconceived notions about god.

Instead, I think a better approach would be to start with a theory of theories, as such a theory would explain not only all other theories that have, are, or ever will be, but also itself.   Such a theory could never be superseded or dismissed by any other, since any other theory that attempts to explain the 'theory of theories' would actually be that same theory!

To answer your question about what 'a priori' knowledge would constitute proof for the existence of a monotheistic god, I think that if a theory of theories demonstrates that theories -- which are inherently mental and must require an intelligent theorizer -- are solely responsible for all real physical and abstract phenomena including other theories, then I think this is proof for a monotheistic god.

Your stance is based upon the preconception that a monotheistic god cannot choose to take physical form (ie. a burning bush) and in fact keep such a form if it so desires indefinately. If we all agree that a truely omnipotent being could do anything if it so wills it, then it must be true that this includes taking form of a teapot or FSM. Although we might believe it to be improbable or even rediculous that god would actually choose to do this, it does not make it impossible. Therefore, I believe the FSM analogy is acceptable, however unpalatable.

Nope, it's still not acceptable.

I make no such preconception.  In the latter half of my referenced post, I even state it's probably not a good idea to have any preconceived notions about God at all.  Still, you are correct that an omnipotent entity would be a free entity, even free to be able to force constraints upon itself such that it is infinite and finite simultaneously. Jesus is an example.

Still, it doesn't matter.  It doesn't matter with regards to my position because I asserted that 1) no empirical proof of a monotheistic god could ever exist, and that 2) there needn't be any.

If we witnessed a talking, burning bush, you can't conclude from that that it is a monotheistic god, even if it tells you "I'm God!" a million times.

FSM aside, I agree with you completely on every point.

[Sundark]

Using words 'Science' and 'God' in the same sentence is contradiction by itself. We should not continue this pointless thread anymore in my humble opinion. Let believers believe and sceptics can doubt. That is the beauty of choice.

[BADecker]

Isn't the machine quality of the universe and life, especially when the "machinery" is advanced as it appears, and there is the presence of simple, almost non-machinery as well, a consideration?

The fact that there are tremendously "advanced" forms of complex machinery (life) in the universe...

and the fact that there is absolutely nothing but pure guesswork regarding how these advanced "machines" came about (because they are so advanced that we simply don't have enough of a handle on the idea to do more than guess)...

combined with our own active operating machine making activities that show that (usually) the more advanced machine makers among us make more advanced machines - remember, all of our machine-making abilities come from what we observe and use as already found in the universe, and we are really only scratching the surface in the amounts and ways that we use the machines of the universe...

at this stage of our development, wouldn't this be evidence for a real God?

As you say, it wouldn't be proof. Yet I would consider it to be a gigantically large chunk of evidence, evidence so great as to get me to start examining any records that I could to see if the "probable" God hadn't left us a more direct and clearer record of Himself.

Consider how great the nervous system and brain combination of a human being are from the Isaac Asimov sci-fi quote at: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=761592.msg9656564#msg9656564 .

Nope, we've gone over this a ton already.  Complex life is in no way proof for a god.  Something more complex would have had to make your god, and on and on and on...

You know, you have a way of twisting things. You're statement, above, "Complex life is in no way proof for a god," is a totally acceptable statement. But you haven't ever answered the question. What kind of evidence is it? You keep saying "proof" when we all know there isn't any proof. Does lack of proof mean that there can't be any evidence whatsoever?

The idea of something making God is unfounded. Why? Because we don't know enough about God from the evidence to suggest that He has any kind of need for being made. And the evidence is so inconclusive that there is no way to say that He WAS made.

[BADecker]

Using words 'Science' and 'God' in the same sentence is contradiction by itself. Why should not continue this pointless thread anymore in my humble opinion. Let believers believe and sceptics can doubt. That is the beauty of choice.

Wrong! Why? We know that there is science. We use it all the time. We don't have conclusive scientific evidence one way or the other about the existence of God. So, IF God exists, and IF He is the creator of all things, then He IS the most important Cause of science that there is. Why shouldn't we continue to consider God along with science until we can prove that He doesn't exist?

[rosh]

Wrong! Why? We know that there is science. We use it all the time. We don't have conclusive scientific evidence one way or the other about the existence of God. So, IF God exists, and IF He is the creator of all things, then He IS the most important Cause of science that there is. Why shouldn't we continue to consider God along with science until we can prove that He doesn't exist?

I don't think we will ever be able to prove God doesn't exist.

[Sundark]

Wrong! Why? We know that there is science. We use it all the time. We don't have conclusive scientific evidence one way or the other about the existence of God. So, IF God exists, and IF He is the creator of all things, then He IS the most important Cause of science that there is. Why shouldn't we continue to consider God along with science until we can prove that He doesn't exist?

I don't think we will ever be able to prove God doesn't exist.

Exactly. We can't prove that he exist either.

[cooldgamer]

Isn't the machine quality of the universe and life, especially when the "machinery" is advanced as it appears, and there is the presence of simple, almost non-machinery as well, a consideration?

The fact that there are tremendously "advanced" forms of complex machinery (life) in the universe...

and the fact that there is absolutely nothing but pure guesswork regarding how these advanced "machines" came about (because they are so advanced that we simply don't have enough of a handle on the idea to do more than guess)...

combined with our own active operating machine making activities that show that (usually) the more advanced machine makers among us make more advanced machines - remember, all of our machine-making abilities come from what we observe and use as already found in the universe, and we are really only scratching the surface in the amounts and ways that we use the machines of the universe...

at this stage of our development, wouldn't this be evidence for a real God?

As you say, it wouldn't be proof. Yet I would consider it to be a gigantically large chunk of evidence, evidence so great as to get me to start examining any records that I could to see if the "probable" God hadn't left us a more direct and clearer record of Himself.

Consider how great the nervous system and brain combination of a human being are from the Isaac Asimov sci-fi quote at: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=761592.msg9656564#msg9656564 .

Nope, we've gone over this a ton already.  Complex life is in no way proof for a god.  Something more complex would have had to make your god, and on and on and on...

You know, you have a way of twisting things. You're statement, above, "Complex life is in no way proof for a god," is a totally acceptable statement. But you haven't ever answered the question. What kind of evidence is it? You keep saying "proof" when we all know there isn't any proof. Does lack of proof mean that there can't be any evidence whatsoever?

The idea of something making God is unfounded. Why? Because we don't know enough about God from the evidence to suggest that He has any kind of need for being made. And the evidence is so inconclusive that there is no way to say that He WAS made.

It's not evidence for a god either.  Same difference, used the wrong word.

[BADecker]

Wrong! Why? We know that there is science. We use it all the time. We don't have conclusive scientific evidence one way or the other about the existence of God. So, IF God exists, and IF He is the creator of all things, then He IS the most important Cause of science that there is. Why shouldn't we continue to consider God along with science until we can prove that He doesn't exist?

I don't think we will ever be able to prove God doesn't exist.

Exactly. We can't prove that he exist either.

Yet, the universe seems to have fantastically marvelous and great machine-like qualities. And we know from our own doings and observations that machine-making only exists in the higher species (man makes a lot of machines, and chimps and monkeys make crude machine tools). Yet mans' machines (at least so far) can't compare in quality, quantity, and magnitude to the machines that he sees around himself in the universe. So, why do we strive to leave the idea of God out of the picture, when there is great possibility that the machines of the universe were made?

[BADecker]

Isn't the machine quality of the universe and life, especially when the "machinery" is advanced as it appears, and there is the presence of simple, almost non-machinery as well, a consideration?

The fact that there are tremendously "advanced" forms of complex machinery (life) in the universe...

and the fact that there is absolutely nothing but pure guesswork regarding how these advanced "machines" came about (because they are so advanced that we simply don't have enough of a handle on the idea to do more than guess)...

combined with our own active operating machine making activities that show that (usually) the more advanced machine makers among us make more advanced machines - remember, all of our machine-making abilities come from what we observe and use as already found in the universe, and we are really only scratching the surface in the amounts and ways that we use the machines of the universe...

at this stage of our development, wouldn't this be evidence for a real God?

As you say, it wouldn't be proof. Yet I would consider it to be a gigantically large chunk of evidence, evidence so great as to get me to start examining any records that I could to see if the "probable" God hadn't left us a more direct and clearer record of Himself.

Consider how great the nervous system and brain combination of a human being are from the Isaac Asimov sci-fi quote at: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=761592.msg9656564#msg9656564 .

Nope, we've gone over this a ton already.  Complex life is in no way proof for a god.  Something more complex would have had to make your god, and on and on and on...

You know, you have a way of twisting things. You're statement, above, "Complex life is in no way proof for a god," is a totally acceptable statement. But you haven't ever answered the question. What kind of evidence is it? You keep saying "proof" when we all know there isn't any proof. Does lack of proof mean that there can't be any evidence whatsoever?

The idea of something making God is unfounded. Why? Because we don't know enough about God from the evidence to suggest that He has any kind of need for being made. And the evidence is so inconclusive that there is no way to say that He WAS made.

It's not evidence for a god either.  Same difference, used the wrong word.

But it is evidence that there is something that has God-like qualities, even if it is only a living, thinking, virtually breathing universe.