Can science prove or disprove the existence of a Spiritual existence? God?

[EnochSDP]

Yes but it can prove that he does, but since it hasn't yet it may not be all that likely. that, or we have the wrong idea of what god is.

Are you a freemason?

 

[jasonwill2]

Who can possibly guess what our "science" will be like a hundred years from now, much less a thousand or a million years?

Hasn't the advance of "science" already disproved the existance of many Gods throughout our history? How many people today still worship a Sun God?

Go into the neo-pagan directory and see how many comment on that post, they are around.

Who like Zeus,Baal,Amun Ra,Molech and such...you havent disproved any of them.Just that what those Gods and people said was untrue.
Elohim-YHWH-has yet to be disproven.

Who says these other gods are not real?

Are you a freemason?

No, but if I was I would be forbidden from talking about religion or politics in the lodges. As for religion all you need to join is to state that you believe in a higher power and select a Holy Book to put on display in the lodge. You can't talk about religion in the lodge so no one has to justify their belief in a higher power. As a result Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other Theists are members. There is no religion in Freemasonry, just a collection of different theists.

Why would I be a Freemason? Theists Satanists have no holy book so I couldn't join. Oh wait your thinking of the propaganda stereotype that Freemasons are Devil Worshipers that are in leauge with the Illuminati, even though the Illuminati fell apart like over a hundred years ago. And At that the Illuminati was just some posh social club.

EDIT: or did you just see some star shapes and an equation on top of a Bubble chamber in my avatar and jump to conclusions? And yes, that is bubbles made in liquid hydrogen by particles moving through the container and not blood. It's just color enhanced with red to show detail, and then degraded to a 16 color bitmap so that I could work with editing it much easier in MS paint. So perhaps some coloration detail was lost.

 

[lunakilo]

Oh wait your thinking of the propaganda stereotype that Freemasons are Devil Worshipers that are in leauge with the Illuminati, even though the Illuminati fell apart like over a hundred years ago. And At that the Illuminati was just some posh social club.

Oh, but that is what they want you to believe

 

[jasonwill2]

Oh, but that is what they want you to believe

My neighbor thinks we didn't land on the Moon, Floride in the water does something to us, and that Snake-Satan Worshipers rule the country or something... idk gather every single classic conspiracy and he believes them all. and the Best Friend form Highschool thinks the Freemasons are the morally good alternative to the Illuminati and don't ever use their power... it's not amusing to me at all people actually believe that kind of nonsense.

At least my best friend is creative and says that the Nazi's developed time travel and went back and time and got tied with the Knight Templars and that they also had teleportation and more or less when people went through the telelporters became mindless and aggressive... kind of like zombies and the bad guys own only 60% of the music industry of which is mainstream... and he likes alternative.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Nice try Road Warrior, others have tried, but unfortunately Call_of_the_Wild never gets further than:

It doesn't matter anyway, because as I quoted before, Vilenkin already stated that based on the theorem that the universe began to exist, so either he is contradicting himself, or someone is taking what he has been saying out of context to suit their own purposes.

To be quite honest with you, I dont even understand what the quote in question even means. That quote is similar to me asking a person, "Did that lady commit suicide by a gunshot wound to the head".....and the person answers, "The short answer is, yes"....then he adds, "But if we want to get technical about it, she committed suicide because her husband abused her mentally and physically, so it is because of him that she is dead".........well.......that still doesn't change the fact that the woman committed suicide lol....what lead up to her killing herself is irrelevant.....Vilenkin said the short answer was yes, and the quote that I gave he explicitly said that the universe began to exist.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Not you don't call it Luna (I think ), as I wrote in the line BEFORE the one you quoted (don't you ever read peoples posts?) you call it God.

The funny thing is, I've explained why I call it God, and you offered no refutation of it. I am telling you people, you CANNOT refute the truth. You just cant do it. You cant refute the infinity problem, you cant refute the need for an external cause for a finite universe, and science cannot provide an answer as to how living material could rise from nonliving material. You cant rebuttal truth.

 

[McBell]

The funny thing is, I've explained why I call it God, and you offered no refutation of it. I am telling you people, you CANNOT refute the truth. You just cant do it. You cant refute the infinity problem, you cant refute the need for an external cause for a finite universe, and science cannot provide an answer as to how living material could rise from nonliving material. You cant rebuttal truth.

Ignoring the truth does not make it go away.

interesting how with all your talk about truth, you turn your back on it the second it shows you are wrong.

Are you of the mind that if you believe something hard enough and or long enough that it some how becomes the truth?

 

[Turing]

Who like Zeus,Baal,Amun Ra,Molech and such...you havent disproved any of them.Just that what those Gods and people said was untrue.
Elohim-YHWH-has yet to be disproven.

I don't intend to add them all up, but I'm guessing that humankind has invented a fair share of Gods over the ages. My comment wasn't intended to claim that science has disproved them ALL, but I'm guessing you knew that.

Early man looks at the sky, sees the sun and worships it. Fast-forward several thousand years and now we know that the sun is a star, not some man riding across the heavens in a flaming chariot. Go back to the those early people and tell them that their sun god is nothing more than a ball of burning gas and maybe they hit you over the head with a rock. If it wasn't for science washing away our superstitions we might still be praying to the sun today instead of harnessing solar power.

The pursuit of understanding if there is a "creator" to our universe is a worthy endeavor, but the answer (if it can be discovered) will come from science and not through religion. Period.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Ignoring the truth does not make it go away.

interesting how with all your talk about truth, you turn your back on it the second it shows you are wrong.

Are you of the mind that if you believe something hard enough and or long enough that it some how becomes the truth?

Rhetoric

 

[lunakilo]

At least my best friend is creative and says that the Nazi's developed time travel and went back and time and got tied with the Knight Templars and that they also had teleportation and more or less when people went through the telelporters became mindless and aggressive... kind of like zombies and the bad guys own only 60% of the music industry of which is mainstream... and he likes alternative.

Nonsense, they went to the moon.
everybody knows that!

[youtube]Py_IndUbcxc[/youtube]
Iron Sky Official Theatrical Trailer [HD] - YouTube

 

[lunakilo]

It doesn't matter anyway, because as I quoted before, Vilenkin already stated that based on the theorem that the universe began to exist, so either he is contradicting himself, or someone is taking what he has been saying out of context to suit their own purposes.

To be quite honest with you, I dont even understand what the quote in question even means. That quote is similar to me asking a person, "Did that lady commit suicide by a gunshot wound to the head".....and the person answers, "The short answer is, yes"....then he adds, "But if we want to get technical about it, she committed suicide because her husband abused her mentally and physically, so it is because of him that she is dead".........well.......that still doesn't change the fact that the woman committed suicide lol....what lead up to her killing herself is irrelevant.....Vilenkin said the short answer was yes, and the quote that I gave he explicitly said that the universe began to exist.

Using your analogy...

That quote is similar to me asking a person, "Did that lady commit suicide by a gunshot wound to the head".....and the person answers, "The short answer is, yes"....then he adds, "But if we want to get technical about it, it is possible that someone else shot her and made it look like suicide. Further investigations are neded in order to be sure."

Vilenkin said the short answer was yes, as in that is what it looks like at first glance, but you cant rule out murder, I mean that the universe did not in fact have a beginning from that alone. In short you cannot conclude from this alone that the universe began to exist.

 

[lunakilo]

The funny thing is, I've explained why I call it God, and you offered no refutation of it. I am telling you people, you CANNOT refute the truth. You just cant do it. You cant refute the infinity problem, you cant refute the need for an external cause for a finite universe, and science cannot provide an answer as to how living material could rise from nonliving material. You cant rebuttal truth.

And you are welcome to call it God if you want.
But as I explained that is your INTERPRETATION of the facts available to you.
It is quite possible to INTERPRET the data that way, but it is NOT THE ONLY WAY (and before you start complaining that no one is offering alternative interpretations go back and read that post #136 you keep ignoring).

I am offering no refutation of your INTERPRETATION because I see no solid evidence against it.
But no eveidence against something ir NOT proof of its correctsness. ( <-- I think you will ignore this line )

Many people have pointed out problems with your INTERPRETATION, but you ignore the problems and say that does not prove you wrong. And you are correct, but it doesn't prove you right either.

I (and many others) have pointed out the problem that you allow your god to be infinite and eternal but find it absurd if people suggest that the universe itself have these qualities. (And NO your favourite theorem does NOT disprove that, we just went over that)

I also argued that your solution of introducing a god to solve the problem you see with an eternal universe is just taking all the nasty infinite regression which you don't like, wrapping it up and calling it something else, i.e. God. It doesn't solve your problem, it just hides it.
And yes you gave a long speech about design in the universe and why there has to be a god at the beginning, but again that is your INTERPRETATION, others (for example me) do not see design in the universe, so that argument does not make sense to me. You may have convienced yourself, but you have not made a good argument for your view

 

[lunakilo]

Call_of_the_Wild I was wondering about something last night.
Does your world view allow for the universe to be infinitely large?
If yes: How do you explain the universe becomming infinite in size in a finite amout of time?
If no: What is the boundary of the universe?

 

[McBell]

Rhetoric

Yes, 90% of your posts are just that...

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Using your analogy...

That quote is similar to me asking a person, "Did that lady commit suicide by a gunshot wound to the head".....and the person answers, "The short answer is, yes"....then he adds, "But if we want to get technical about it, it is possible that someone else shot her and made it look like suicide. Further investigations are neded in order to be sure."

Vilenkin said the short answer was yes, as in that is what it looks like at first glance, but you cant rule out murder, I mean that the universe did not in fact have a beginning from that alone. In short you cannot conclude from this alone that the universe began to exist.

Um Luna, you cant logically say that the answer is "yes" first, but then proceed to give reasons why "yes" may not be the adequate answer. Either the universe had a beginning, or it didnt have a beginning. There is no grey area, no in-betweens. In the above analogy, if it is possible that someone shot her to make it look like a suicide, then the answer can't be "yes" if a person asks did she commit suicide. Now if the question was asked "Did the woman commit suicide with a gunshot wound to the head", and the answer is "Well, from what it appears, she did"....then I can understand that.....but to say "yes" first....and then to say "no" to the same question is a bit misleading. I have other quotes from Guth and Vilenkin anyway, which both state that the theorem implies a finite universe.

 

[lunakilo]

Um Luna, you cant logically say that the answer is "yes" first, but then proceed to give reasons why "yes" may not be the adequate answer. Either the universe had a beginning, or it didnt have a beginning. There is no grey area, no in-betweens. In the above analogy, if it is possible that someone shot her to make it look like a suicide, then the answer can't be "yes" if a person asks did she commit suicide. Now if the question was asked "Did the woman commit suicide with a gunshot wound to the head", and the answer is "Well, from what it appears, she did"....then I can understand that.....but to say "yes" first....and then to say "no" to the same question is a bit misleading. I have other quotes from Guth and Vilenkin anyway, which both state that the theorem implies a finite universe.

Um Call_of_the_Wild, do you feel you are better qualified to tell us what Vilenkin ment than Vilenkin himself is?

It is called clarifying. That is you give an answer which in general is true, but if you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is mere complicated.

Question: "Is it true that men are taller than women?"
Short answer: "Yes.";
Longer answer: "No, but if you look at a large group of people then statistically it is correct that more men than women will be tall."

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

And you are welcome to call it God if you want.
But as I explained that is your INTERPRETATION of the facts available to you.
It is quite possible to INTERPRET the data that way, but it is NOT THE ONLY WAY (and before you start complaining that no one is offering alternative interpretations go back and read that post #136 you keep ignoring).

You contradicted yourself in the post by first stating that there was no immediate number before 1, and then you said "you could argue that 0 is before 1". Either there are numbers before 1 or the opposite, both cant be true at the same time.

I am offering no refutation of your INTERPRETATION because I see no solid evidence against it.
But no eveidence against something ir NOT proof of its correctsness. ( <-- I think you will ignore this line )

I agree, but if you are honest and genuine with yourself and accept the evidence that has been provided, then I would think you would go where the evidence is leading you. The problem is not lack of evidence, the problem is acceptance of the evident.

Many people have pointed out problems with your INTERPRETATION

No they haven't

but you ignore the problems and say that does not prove you wrong. And you are correct, but it doesn't prove you right either.

Hmm, well, I can prove them wrong....so why can't they prove me wrong?? Every thing that I said can be tested, and has been tested. I am in line with modern cosmology and my logical conclusions are drawn in light of the evidence. I ask for someone to show me how an actual infinity can exist in real life, and no one can do that. I asked how can something that begin to exist have a internal cause, no one can answer that. I ask now can life come from nonliving material, and science has yet to provide an answer to this. These are simple questions, basic questions, and the reason why the questions haven't been answered because its impossible to answer.

I (and many others) have pointed out the problem that you allow your god to be infinite and eternal but find it absurd if people suggest that the universe itself have these qualities. (And NO your favourite theorem does NOT disprove that, we just went over that)

No, you or anyone else didn't point out how God cant be eternal. Im not even sure what you are talking about here. "...but find it absurd if people suggest that the universe itself have these qualities"........what qualities....what??

I also argued that your solution of introducing a god to solve the problem you see with an eternal universe is just taking all the nasty infinite regression which you don't like, wrapping it up and calling it something else, i.e. God. It doesn't solve your problem, it just hides it.

What??? You are purposely ignoring what I have been saying. No one is introducing God when it comes to every conceivable question that we have about the universe. We introduce God when it comes to absolute origins or the universe, and also for the fine tuning parameters that had to be met to get a life permitting universe. The universe began to exist, that is all space, matter, and energy. Whatever gave these things its beginning could not itself be spatial, material, and of natural energy, because these are the very things that began to exist. Whatever gave these things its beginning had to be immaterial and have a different kind of energy than the energy that it created. God is the only conceivable being that is recognized in any dictionary that you look in to have these kind of attributes. Now what part of that dont you understand??? Nothing within this universe can be the origin of this universe. Is this to hard for you to accept??? I dont see what infinity has to do with this at this point, so maybe you can shed some light on that.

And yes you gave a long speech about design in the universe and why there has to be a god at the beginning, but again that is your INTERPRETATION, others (for example me) do not see design in the universe, so that argument does not make sense to me. You may have convienced yourself, but you have not made a good argument for your view

I know, that is the problem. You and others dont see design in the universe because you dont like the idea of a God. That is the real reason why you dont see design. If you are walking in a field at night and you see a spaceship, you would think that the space ship is designed, and that is only because a spaceship does not have supernatural implications. Our DNA code is more complex than a space shuttle. Yet, the space shuttle was designed, but our DNA code wasn't?? Makes no sense. But like I said, people dont believe in God because they know that once they start believing, that they will be held accountable, so they keep denying despite the overwhelming evidence. How can you get a configured human body that is able to reproduce, see, hear, smell, taste, think and remember, from a mindless, unguided, nonthinking process. It takes just as much faith to believe in that than it does any supernatural deity that I am aware of.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Call_of_the_Wild I was wondering about something last night.
Does your world view allow for the universe to be infinitely large?
If yes: How do you explain the universe becomming infinite in size in a finite amout of time?
If no: What is the boundary of the universe?

That is what the Standard Model suggest, that the universe began a finite time ago and it is becoming infinitely larger as it expands. But the universe is only potentially infinite, not actual infinite. I am not denying the concept of potential infinity, I am denying the concept of actual infinity. Big difference.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Um Call_of_the_Wild, do you feel you are better qualified to tell us what Vilenkin ment than Vilenkin himself is?

It is called clarifying. That is you give an answer which in general is true, but if you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is mere complicated.

Question: "Is it true that men are taller than women?"
Short answer: "Yes.";
Longer answer: "No, but if you look at a large group of people then statistically it is correct that more men than women will be tall."

I still don't agree with the structure of the sentence but either way you look at it, both answers suggest that more men will be taller than women.

 

[lunakilo]

I still don't agree with the structure of the sentence but either way you look at it, both answers suggest that more men will be taller than women.

Yes, most but not that all men will be taller than most women.

Just as most but not all solutions for a universe which is described by the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem will have a beginning.