Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
I never thought proof that God doesn't exist would be tl;dr.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can science disprove the existence of God?
- Thread starter Crypto2015
- Start date
Robert Landbeck
Member
'The existence of God is 'unfalsifiable' Accepted without question. Yet that does not make any claims by religious tradition true. Try this thought experiment: Within the scriptural record, both canonical and non, plus discoveries of the last century such as the Dead Sea scrolls and Nag Hammadi Librairy, there are several hundred passages reflecting the dangers of false teaching. We all know the classics such a anti-christs and of course the arch deceiver, presumably unexposed and still at large. Yet among the many thousands of competing denominations claiming to be 'Christian', both ancient and modern, there is nothing to distinguish one from another. All are theological, all use the Bible, all claim some form of affiliation with Jesus or license to interpret scripture. Yet self evidently they cannot all be authentic. But hey can all be false! I suspect God will have the last laugh on us all. A second coming that offers what both science and religion 'agree' is not possible. A path for faith of verifiable proof of the divine existence. And expose our species for the unholy truth of what it is: dishonest with itself, deaf, dumb and blind to the living truth of the living God. What generation will live to see it all?
Deathbydefault
Apistevist Asexual Atheist
And what about the number "zero"?
Deathbydefault
Apistevist Asexual Atheist
I understand the concept you pull with 1 being the only true number, as it can create every other whole number.
But you must realize that zero, the absence of 1, also exists.
Who are you to say we are living in a reality that caters to your '1 hypothesis'?
For all you know, and as an alarming amount of evidence shows, we are living in the realm of 'zero'
The start all, where only things equal to it may exist.
Let me make an example of this.
If we live in a reality of zero, as is shown by evidence, then matter is equal to zero.
I say that because it cannot be either created nor destroyed, only channeled.
It does not create more of itself, nor does it take away from itself.
You can neither +1 matter or -1 matter, therefore, matter is ultimate, it is zero.
That isn't the only example of math relation I can give for the number zero.
But you must realize that zero, the absence of 1, also exists.
Who are you to say we are living in a reality that caters to your '1 hypothesis'?
For all you know, and as an alarming amount of evidence shows, we are living in the realm of 'zero'
The start all, where only things equal to it may exist.
Let me make an example of this.
If we live in a reality of zero, as is shown by evidence, then matter is equal to zero.
I say that because it cannot be either created nor destroyed, only channeled.
It does not create more of itself, nor does it take away from itself.
You can neither +1 matter or -1 matter, therefore, matter is ultimate, it is zero.
That isn't the only example of math relation I can give for the number zero.
1Co 1:19 For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart."
1Co 1:20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
1Co 1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.
1Co 1:20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
1Co 1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.
Marsh
Active Member
"Can science disprove the existence of God?" I'd say no, and I'm an atheist. I will acknowledge though that science often eliminates the necessity to believe. It provides more in depth and far more reasonable explanations than the simplistic myths offered up in Genesis. I will also say that scientists are not gearing their research to answer the god question. Do the results of experiments and resulting hypotheses, and theories, often fly in the face of biblical claims? Yes, but that is because Genesis does not mirror reality.
All existence is conceptual including science, even our concepts of "self" "science"and "God". We are born and then die within this conceptual dream of this world. We know NOthing. We have not even a clue, hence ignorance is bliss. If there be a God there is also a Devil, if there be a black cat there will also be a white cat....that is how concepts work, if there be a work at all.How many here will come up with an answer in 50 years time? And as most of us will be dead, what will science do for us? We can fill our coffin with i-phones, lap tops etc...of what use?
Deathbydefault
Apistevist Asexual Atheist
Science is knowledge, my friend.
The more we know, the better off we are.
Science has created, and will continue to create medicine.
The type of which saves lives by the millions.
But, to answer your question, science sates my thirst for knowledge.
And it has also saved my life three times.
It will prevent my child from getting the vast majority of deadly diseases.
It gives me something to look forward to everyday.
It gives me a meaning to my life.
It gives us all something to turn to for facts that are actually facts.
Most of all, it helps make life that much easier.
That is fine, but can you give me the same answer in 50 years, and will I be around to read it? Of what use then is Science, except for making our lives more complex and live longer so we can pay more tax? A simple life is a happy life, for ignorance is bliss, the more you have the more you tend to want......desire is endless as long as science dangles the wriggling worm in front of you, billionaires can be very unhappy. Death is a fact, tomorrow or whenever..... science can only postpone very temporarily what is inevitable, and how profitable for our Rulers, as they garner the extra tax? Science is making our lives far more complex, drug use and depression is going through the roof, wars are constantly waging as Science marches forward, refugees from the ravages of science's products, are at a record scale. Police can hardly fight crime due to Domestic violence, wars are fuelled by Science, drones kill people thousands of miles away while their operators sit with their families having a beer.............what does Science do about that, what does Science do about atomic weapons, what answer does Science give us? Science has no answers on the unknown, it only extends the borders of the known. God is consciousness, as consciousness is the only reality and has need of NOthing...neither proof or it's opposite....it is the total absence of both, of all duality, until you make God a concept and idol of the mind or carved out of matter.
Deathbydefault
Apistevist Asexual Atheist
As I've said, science is knowledge.
How that knowledge is used is not up to science.
Atomic bombs, drones, etc.
It's a gigantic puzzle the likes of which cannot be comprehended.
It has no will or want, no mind to adhere to.
It's at the disposal of humans.
Whether it be used for politics, war, or medicine, it is the only constant stream of knowledge we have.
You seem to be stuck in an extremely pessimistic worldview, much like I am.
I agree that death is fact, inevitable in itself... Read my name, lol.
But, I disagree on God, as I am a hard atheist and apatheist.
I do not need, nor do I want God. I just want to live my life as enjoyable as possible then revert to nothingness.
Being some eternal slave, or constituting a superbeing of 'oneness', does not appeal to me.
It's only a way to escape reality, and I don't care to do that in such a mentally twisted fashion.
1) Irrational and complex numbers
2) There are more numbers in the interval [0,1] than there are "counting numbers", integers, even rationals. Not all infinities are equal. In fact, even though there are infinitely many rationals in every interval in R, they are a negligible set, so small that they can be basically ignored for many purposes (e.g., integration or probability, as the probability of selecting a rational number at random from any interval is 0).
What part of/what fraction of 1 is Euler's constant?
Here I thought completeness required that all Cauchy sequences converge
Nope.
The interval (0,1) has no end, as for any number in the interval we pick (e.g., .999999999999999999999999999999999), there are infinitely many numbers closer than this one to the number 1, and as () denote open sets, 1, isn't in this interval. Closed sets in R are denoted [a,b].
Boundaries and boundedness are different in mathematics and neither refers to the "beginning" of an open set (a,b) which by virtue of being open has no beginning and no end. It does have a l.u.b./supremum and a g.l.b./infimum.
Brackets denote many things. Parenthesis do too.
How exactly do Dedekind cuts, nonlinear transformations in complex spaces, linear combinations of infinite dimensional function spaces, complex integration, Lebesgue integrals, Fourier transforms, differentiating under the integral, the axioms of ZFC, Lebesgue-Stieltjes measures, and so on, amount to "fancy and group methods of...addition and subtraction"?
Path integrals calculated by addition and subtraction. Hmmm...
Funny scientists don't seem to be aware of this scientific fact.
????
Quantum mechanics is problematic PRECISELY because it is incompatible with special relativity in that it DOESN'T allow for the creation or annihilation of particles, hence quantum field theory.
Cantor had trouble believing his own results (writing to Dedekind "I see [it], but I don't believe [it]"), having proved that there is a map from R to R2 as well as that there exist infinitely many distinct infinite sets, starting with countably infinite sets (the natural numbers, integers, rationals, etc.), the continuum (anything with cardinality equal to that of [0,1]), the power set of the continuum, etc. He didn't coin transfinite to make these distinctions, he proved them somewhat accidently and then had to develop a term to deal with his results.
Last edited:
notexceling
New Member
What is 0?
Please explain
Cause if you mean something was there and then wasn't then it never can be 0 and if it never existed we wouldn't know the 0 of it exists
Something that exist can not "not" exist because it has existed.
If the entity is removed it is the absence of an existence, not uncreated.
Nothing can only exist because it was something.
Something can never become nothing because it was once something and nothing can not be subtracted unless it becomes an additional something.
As soon as we label it nothing, it becomes something even if there is nothing there. The reason is when we identify its nothing, we give a no value (even if its nothing) within mathematical laws.
This doesn't only apply to physical or tangible entities.
For example we can create (or add on) using our imagination. The unique imaginative something that we created exists at a certain time within your space so even if forgotten and never remembered again, it can never become nothing, only the addition it supplied is removed.
However even this imaginative something is still restricted and can only be created because of our experiences.
We can not imagine what someone else imagines nor can we conjure up something unimaginable because everything you imagine is subject to your experiences or, your moment in time within the space of your life.
E.g
Say I dreamt of monster in my childhood.
Did that monster ever exist?
Actually yes, even though I just imagined it subconsciously it existed and was definable at that present time, even if none of the details can be remembered or is totally forgotten.
I.e it must be recorded for that particular time of my space
More so, for me just to give the above example I am creating something.
I've defined a nonexistent for example purposes so even if I never had any dreams of a monster in my life, it still exists because of my example.
Hence we can never identify "Absolute Zero" for as soon as we label "it" , "it" becomes the absence of something rather than becoming from nothing.
"But, I disagree on God, as I am a hard atheist and apatheist.
I do not need, nor do I want God. I just want to live my life as enjoyable as possible then revert to nothingness.
Being some eternal slave, or constituting a superbeing of 'oneness', does not appeal to me."
You are entitled to think that. One's point was that "God" is not a personal being, but a concept for most people. One considers "God" to be "consciousness" not a thought, idea or an image, but pure awareness without a subject or object in view, never a thing in time and space, beyond what is understood through the senses sensorially. Of course our sensorial constructed reality, that is so overwhelmingly convincing, despite illusions of sight, and new theorems like the Quantum world. No doubt the metaphysical development of philosophy may ask questions, that Science cannot answer and even dialectically disprove......like for example, Nagarjuma, Candrakirti that that can bring our sensorial world to the guillotine..... that is so to speak. bring it to a head. Our Science is no more exact than our Religious theology, as they are all based on invalid assumptions. according to it's own incredible fabrications of the mind. Not even our mind can be demonstrated to exist in a sensorial way, or even an observer that observes an experiment...........all of this is conceptual based on information from our 6 senses to be infallible..... there is no direct evidence our senses are infallible.It is just a belief like God.
Science is only valid if our senses are infallible.
I do not need, nor do I want God. I just want to live my life as enjoyable as possible then revert to nothingness.
Being some eternal slave, or constituting a superbeing of 'oneness', does not appeal to me."
You are entitled to think that. One's point was that "God" is not a personal being, but a concept for most people. One considers "God" to be "consciousness" not a thought, idea or an image, but pure awareness without a subject or object in view, never a thing in time and space, beyond what is understood through the senses sensorially. Of course our sensorial constructed reality, that is so overwhelmingly convincing, despite illusions of sight, and new theorems like the Quantum world. No doubt the metaphysical development of philosophy may ask questions, that Science cannot answer and even dialectically disprove......like for example, Nagarjuma, Candrakirti that that can bring our sensorial world to the guillotine..... that is so to speak. bring it to a head. Our Science is no more exact than our Religious theology, as they are all based on invalid assumptions. according to it's own incredible fabrications of the mind. Not even our mind can be demonstrated to exist in a sensorial way, or even an observer that observes an experiment...........all of this is conceptual based on information from our 6 senses to be infallible..... there is no direct evidence our senses are infallible.It is just a belief like God.
Science is only valid if our senses are infallible.
notexceling
New Member
Irrational and complex numbers are still restricted by governing laws of mathematics and can be identified by numbers, meaning they are only the infinite possibilities within 1 and not an actual infinite concept which can't be defined.
In infinite irrational numbersl like Pi or Eulers number (or any infinite concepts and other infinity example paradoxes) are all restricted to governing laws and numerical values; they can never be absolute infinite cause they are defined
This equation is explaining the Absolute Infinite beyond any restricting and governing laws.
Using Pi as an example we can easily see its restricted to itself and only potentially infinite.
To explain, Pi is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter and is restricted to the circle's circumference. It is within a 100% complete and enclosing "circle".
Same goes for every type and size of infinite we know.
For example take the hilbert hotel paradox, It is still within a hotel.
This infinite is bounded and ended by the governing laws of its confinements. When Time/Space ends, the numbers within it must end with it.
Absolute Infinity can not be governed or restricted by numerical properties
Also 3.1415926535... is basically (1)+(1)+(1)
We have "3" individual 100% complete (1)s and we are 0.85840734641021...
away from the next complete (1), or the 4th (1)
They are described and defined by mathematics. The problem is that they don't conform to your "everything can be explained in terms of 1" approach. Otherwise, you could demonstrate how.
This isn't math, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy, or metaphysics. It's just not meaningful, but is demonstrably wrong from a mathematical or philosophy of mathematics perspective.
Not only can infinite concepts be defined, but differing such concepts can be and have been.
What is the basis for this claim?
You didn't provide any actual equations. You just wrote down a bunch of nonsense notation surrounded by nonsense descriptions of mathematics.
It's not infinite at all. It's representation requires an actual infinite, but it is an infinitesimal point.
There are infinitely many circles, not "the circle", and the relationship you describe yields a number which requires an ACTUALLY INFINITE amount of information.
I'm loosing interest. Normally, I'll use any excuse to introduce topics from mathematics, but there is a limit to how much nonsense I'll wade through to do this.
I didn't reference, mention, or otherwise point to any paradox. You've read into what I've written that which isn't present.
And oranges are peas, hotels are dogs, and numbers are buttons. Wake me when you get to the demonstrations concerning "Dedekind cuts, nonlinear transformations in complex spaces, linear combinations of infinite dimensional function spaces, complex integration, Lebesgue integrals, Fourier transforms, differentiating under the integral, the axioms of ZFC, Lebesgue-Stieltjes measures, and so on" (and path integrals, which I believe I mentioned too).
Deathbydefault
Apistevist Asexual Atheist
By your own logic, 0 is the absence of 1.
You define 1 as the all creating number, that of which leads to God in infinity.
But what about 0? How do you know we aren't living in an infinity reality with the number 0?
If everything is 0, everything is constant, that's why I referenced matter.
It cannot be created nor destroyed, you cannot give (+1) or take (-1) with matter.
I say we are living in a reality that is 0. You say we are living in a reality that is 1.
We can discuss the logic behind it all day, but you cannot factually tell me this isn't a reality within 0.
Deathbydefault
Apistevist Asexual Atheist
The way you describe God just leads me to believe such a God has no point or purpose.
If it's just there, not doing much and going with the flow, it's still useless and meaningless to me.
This spiritualistic stuff does nothing for me either.
Also, I do not think it is up to public question, whether or not science is valid.
StopS
Member
I am amazed that anyone would write this. Science analyses and describes natural phenomena. Science completely ignores gods.
If a scientist makes any kind of comment on a god then not in their capacity as scientist - and definitely not high-calibre.
It's pretty tough to prove non-existence, so the entire notion is flawed in my eyes.
budha3
Member
Max Wertheimer wrote. "There are wholes, the behavior of which is not determined by that of their individual elements, but where the part-processes are themselves determined by the intrinsic nature of the whole. It is the hope of Gestalt theory to determine the nature of such wholes" Put simply; if you combine entities, what is formed is a completely new entity. Jesus said that we are Gods. The all powerful God is a result of all the Gods combined into one ("The Lord thy God is One") Some refer to this as "Universal Consciousness" Gestalt psychology gives us the evidence of the existence of God