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

[paarsurrey]

I think I did not use the words “supernatural” or “magic” or “intelligent design”. The world/universe/s work, as I understand, under natural processes set by the one true attributive creator God; the part that the humans have been able to discern from them yet are called science; while those that have yet to be discerned by humans, though natural, yet cannot be explained by science; that does not mean they are not natural.

I don’t know where you brought the word magic in discussion.

Further, I think whatever exists which has not been created by human hands is natural; and that which has been touched by human hand or brain is artificial or man-made. The natural is created by the ONE- true attributive creator God under processes evolved naturally. There is nothing super-natural.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

perhaps supernatural and the natural are just part of an underlying set of laws. perhaps supernatural beings are real, but that their nature is so different as to make their interactions with the natural rare due to them being some weird form of matter or energy

I believe in naturalism, I also believe that gods and spirits are naturalistic, just that we do not understand them yet with science

that or they are trolling us

Interestingly, the smartest Gods are often portrayed as tricksters or riddle-tellers.

Beware of Gods who do not laugh

 

[TRussert]

Those who believe the Bible know that proof of God is an impossibility in this world. It is faith, not proof, that God requires of us. If God wanted to provide us "proof" of his existence, He would have not made us in His image; He would not have given us free will which is why this forum exists, as well as all the endeavors of mankind.

That typed, we do in fact have proof of the spiritual foundations of ourselves and existence. In addition to the scriptures that proclaim it, so too does science and our very own individual experience of every moment of every day. It is in the findings of Quantum Mechanics and our very ability to interact with the world around us. While this in no way proves the existence of God, it does in fact prove we are spiritual by nature rather then physical.

The Biblical versus that best describe this come from the New Testament. There are other versus in both the Old and New Testaments that do this also, but none better then Romans 1:20, 4:17, 2 Corinthians 4:18, and Hebrews 11:1 & 3. For believers, these versus tell us that God creates what we physically experience from what is not physical, that reality is called into being as though it really exists even while it doesn't physically.
Faith enables us, believer and non believer to experience it as real by the measure of faith God bestows on everyone.

Romans 1:20 states, "For since the Creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen". God's invisible attributes appear to us as physical reality. Romans 4:17 states "God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did". Again, physical experience does not exist, but God makes it seem real.
2 Corinthians 4:18, "For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal". The physical experience is temporary, they are an illusion, while the spiritual reality is eternal. Hebrews 11 1&3, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible". Faith allows us to experience as physical things that have no evidence of being physical. It is God's word that creates the experience we know as physically real, but which actually consist exclusively of God's word; his thoughts and consciousness. If you object to how I have defined these verses, please feel free to substitute your own definitions. The results will be the same.

For the non believer this has to of course sound like psycho babble and mumbo jumbo, for how could ancient fisherman, sheep herders, farmers, and the like be discussing the illusions of physical reality? Why would God even bring it up to people who's ability to comprehend such concepts based on the educational levels of the day limit them to understand Quantum level reality and sensory transduction? Because the Bible speaks to all people of all generations. What may not have been understood at one point might be at another. Case in point, the physiology of how we experience physical reality.

The only contact we have with physical experience is in this present moment. Your own sensory processes prove this to you, and you do not need to be a rocket scientist to experience this proof. While the different five physical senses each tell us something different about reality, they function the same way. Scientifically, we have discovered that our bodies are equipped with millions of nerve endings each "detecting" experience. These allow us to "know" what we are looking at, what we hear, smell, taste, and touch.
The process of sensing experience occurs when we detect an outside influence. For example, when light reflects off an object and enters our eyes, the image that light brings gets converted into and electro chemical code by the rods and cones in our eyes, and then sends this code to the area of the brain assigned to visual experience. Here that code is matched against countless other vision codes, and when a match is made, we have the experience of sight. It is at this moment we recognize and define what we are seeing. The same process occurs with our other four senses, but based on different stimuli. Instead of light it might be heat or cold, texture, or pressure, or gas molecules, or molecules in liquid or solid form, or the compression of air. All these allow us to recognize and identify what we see, hear, touch, smell, and taste. While there is still a lot to learn regarding the total function of our senses and recognition's through them, the above is established scientific fact as to how we experience physical reality. Take away these senses, and we are either dead, sleeping, or possibly in a coma.

Understanding this, where does our experience with physical reality happen? If we have no experience of sight, sound, smell, flavor, or touch until our brain recognizes and defines electro chemically coded signals, then the only "place" experience can happen is in our brain, and only at the moment of recognition and definition. Everything we know as physical actually only occurs in the thoughts our brain generates about what is outside us. Even our very physical identity cannot be experienced as physical until recognition of ourselves goes through this same elctro chemical code/decode/recognition/definition process. While this may sound as "spooky" as the above Biblical Scriptures, it is scientific fact. Certainly we also have subjective experience which could be about things physical or of just pure thought, but even these cannot be recognized and defined by us unless we "first" experience our physical identity subjectively. We cannot have any kind of experience without "seeing" ourselves as part of that experience. Certainly there is a lot of denial about this concept because it seems so "unreal", but you need only follow your experiences of your physical senses and the experiences of your thoughts to realize that no matter how unreal this means of experience is, it is in fact our reality. While we are so convinced we have objective experience about stuff all around us, the truth is all of our experience is actually and totally subjective. It occurs in our brain and only at the moment of recognition. We can't hear, see, touch, smell. or taste something experienced at ant time but the moment it was recognized. You can remember it, or imagine it, but you can't experience it as real except right now. Now, how is this even possible to begin with? How can we have been so blind to something so obvious, yet completely opposite to what we think is real physical reality?

Quantum Mechanics is the Science of understanding the most fundamental aspects of existence. If we want to know how things work, why they behave as they do, and how they interact with all other aspects of physical existence, we look to Quantum Mechanics.

Here is where the very nature of atoms and subatomic particles; all the things from which the physical universe and everything in it is made of, including us, begins. If you thought the Biblical Scriptures and nature of our experience above is absurd, this will really blow your mind.

Quantum Mechanics began in the early 1900's with a Physicist named Max Planck with his Planck's Constant formula and more or less took final form in the mid 1920's with Physicists like Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Bohr, de Broglie, Einstein, and other Scientific greats. From then until now, the emphasis has primarily been to disprove it, or come up with a better theory. To date, not only has the original findings of Quantum Mechanics not been disproved, it has instead been repeatedly confirmed and perpetuated. Not withstanding the more recent theories about "String Theory", the "Many Worlds Theory" and the potential discovery of the Higgs Boson, Quantum Mechanics is founded on a few fundamental principles. Among these are Uncertainty, Wave Function, Complimentarity, Decoherence, Entanglement, Non Locality, and others. What Quantum Mechanics describes is a Universe that does not exist until it is "observed", that there is no cause and effect in the Quantum experience, just an instantaneous now from which one of an infinite number of probabilities materializes as physical experience only when observed or measured, and that all quantum states are aware of and have communication with each other, again, instantaneously. Obviously this is as far removed from the experience we each know as is possible to get, yet these, among other as bazaar findings, are the results obtained over the last 100 plus years of investigating, experimenting, and attempts to disprove what is the foundation of our physical reality.

Naturally, there are many who will dispute this because it so obviously conforms to the actual subjective experience we have and the Biblical descriptions of reality above. Denial however does not change the facts, and again, even for non believers, you have the direct evidence of your non physical foundational being in the way you experience all you do, as subjective experience exclusively.

Does any of this prove the existence of God? Of course not, nor can it. That is a matter of faith, the exact same faith that allows you to see things as physical when they are not physical in the first place. WE each are spiritual and we each are our proof of it.

At least I hope this gives a different perspective on this forum's topic.

Cheers

 

[Koldo]

That typed, we do in fact have proof of the spiritual foundations of ourselves and existence. In addition to the scriptures that proclaim it, so too does science and our very own individual experience of every moment of every day. It is in the findings of Quantum Mechanics and our very ability to interact with the world around us. While this in no way proves the existence of God, it does in fact prove we are spiritual by nature rather then physical.

How does any of this prove we are spiritual by nature rather than physical?

 

[TRussert]

Hi Koldo,

Scientifically, things that are part of the physical experience, namely the things we detect with our physical senses, whether directly or indirectly, only have specific identity at the point we attempt to measure or observe them. If we observe your handsome pooch, it is only in that instant of observing him (or her?) that he/she becomes physical appearing.

When we don't see him/her, he/she exists as one of an infinite number of probable versions of him/ her self. This applies to everything we observe, whether it's something we see, hear, taste, touch, or smell. If we only exist as probabilities of ourselves and everything else only exists likewise, we are in a non material state of being. I call that spiritual. You could call it an alternate state of self awareness if you prefer, but you cannot call it physical until the moment of observation.

This is simply an established finding, repeatedly demonstrated by Quantum Mechanics. There are those who argue that an observer doesn't have to be a human one, or even a probable human one. A camera that records images could be an observer, or an electron could be an observer, but the fact of the matter is we have no way of knowing or proving anything but ourselves can be observers as we are the ones who give recognition and definition to what is being observed.

Without conscious awareness, it is impossible to determine an observation can occur.
So, if we are the observers who, in that instant of observation, detect physical experience, but only one probable version of it, we are experiencing an illusion. What we are observing is not what it appears to be. Nor can it be when the Quantum Structure of reality is anything but physical and requires self awareness, or consciousness, or spiritual form to even appear to exist as real. The Quantum realm, from which our physical one comes from, is a totally subjective state of probabilities. It is spiritual. No scientist will call it that, but that's what it is.

Now, consider how we are able to observe in the first place "physically". It cannot happen without subjective recognition and identification of what is being observed. We think this happens in the brain, but how can a brain, or our physical form, or anything physical appear as real unless it is observed? It cannot. Therefore this is our proof we are in fact spiritual in nature. The experience of detecting physical reality with physical senses and nerves and a brain is impossible without any of these being observed to begin with. Who is doing the observing that makes physical reality appear real then?

For believers it's God, just as He describes it. For non believers it has to be some form of conscious awareness since the God explanation is so detestable, so why not just call it a spiritual identity.

The bottom line, based on Quantum Mechanics and sensory perception, is physical reality cannot appear real without a spiritual identity to make the observation that "materializes" the one version of all the probable ones. You have the direct experience of this if you just follow the process in your mind. You are the proof. We each are.

Cheers, and thanks for responding.

 

[PolyHedral]

That isn't how quantum mechanics works at all. It is a gross misunderstanding, propagated by quacks who wouldn't know a complex-valued field if it slapped them in the face.
[youtube]M5QGkOGZubQ[/youtube]

 

[TRussert]

I'm sure everyone on a Religious forum is waiting to hear about complex valued fields, or any scaler fields for that matter. As for the condescension, thank you, as it puts me in good company, for according to you, Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, Wolfgang Pauli, Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrodenger, Eugene Wigner, and others would also be quacks.

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”
― Werner Heisenberg


“Both Religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view.”
“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”
- Max Planck

"It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." -Eugene Wigner

“Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.”
― Niels Bohr
“The very nature of the quantum theory ... forces us to regard the space-time coordination and the claim of causality, the union of which characterizes the classical theories, as complementary but exclusive features of the description, symbolizing the idealization of observation and description, respectively.”
― Niels Bohr

“The task is...not so much to see what no one has yet seen; but to think what nobody has yet thought, about that which everybody sees.”
― Erwin Schrödinger
“Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”
― Erwin Schrödinger

 

[outhouse]

thats a lot of typing to only state faith is required, and no evidence of any kind exist or could exist.

 

[s2a]

Those who believe the Bible know that proof of God is an impossibility in this world. It is faith, not proof, that God requires of us. If God wanted to provide us "proof" of his existence, He would have not made us in His image; He would not have given us free will which is why this forum exists, as well as all the endeavors of mankind.

That typed, we do in fact have proof of the spiritual foundations of ourselves and existence. In addition to the scriptures that proclaim it, so too does science and our very own individual experience of every moment of every day. It is in the findings of Quantum Mechanics and our very ability to interact with the world around us. While this in no way proves the existence of God, it does in fact prove we are spiritual by nature rather then physical.

Well no, not really, it doesn’t.

What it proves is that our species exhibits and retains the capacities to reflect upon it’s own existence, and wax on philosophically about that self-awareness ad infinitum.

If you desire to submit a “proof” of some divinely rooted “spiritual” nature, you’re going to need more than philosophical ruminations as “proof” of anything of substance.

As I have often observed and commented here, “faith” is it’s own evidence of self, but nothing more. The fact that people can exhibit and proclaim their faith (in whatever supernaturalistic explanations they prefer), only serves to “prove” that “faith” exists, but not conclusive evidence of deities (as you summarized beforehand).

Faith enables us, believer and non believer to experience it as real by the measure of faith God bestows on everyone.

What your faith allows you is to conclude that your god has “bestowed” upon us is a capacity to experience the cosmos on our own. That “gifting” remains to be questioned…

If you object to how I have defined these verses, please feel free to substitute your own definitions. The results will be the same.

Well, I’m working on it…

For the non believer this has to of course sound like psycho babble and mumbo jumbo, for how could ancient fisherman, sheep herders, farmers, and the like be discussing the illusions of physical reality? Why would God even bring it up to people who's ability to comprehend such concepts based on the educational levels of the day limit them to understand Quantum level reality and sensory transduction? Because the Bible speaks to all people of all generations. What may not have been understood at one point might be at another. Case in point, the physiology of how we experience physical reality.

You pose the presumably rhetorical question, yet offer no definitive answer from your own quoted source materiel.

It’s a beggar’s point at best. If your god “knew” that our species was too dense or ignorant to appreciate or comprehend complex and intricate details afforded by Quantum Mechanics, then “Why bring them Up”?

Well, why not?

If your (or any other “god”) simply “knows” the essence and capacities of “his” own creation, then why be coy, or vague, or indistinct? What would be the point of being obscure, if you already “knew” that the enhanced revelations of the cosmos would eventually be discovered anyway?

Now, how is this even possible to begin with? How can we have been so blind to something so obvious, yet completely opposite to what we think is real physical reality?

Perhaps because it’s not unique to our own species? I’ll grant you this much… it seems that our species alone evinces the mindset that the cosmos exists for our gratification and experiences.., despite the very real fact the our species has only existed for an eye blink within the entirety of measurable time…

…now, what aspect of the cosmos and/or accounts of biblical anecdotes answers that vanity?

If you thought the Biblical Scriptures and nature of our experience above is absurd, this will really blow your mind.

I kinda doubt it, but do continue...

Quantum Mechanics began…

What followed was a fair and concise summary of the mysteries and mind-bending conundrums of Quantum mechanics…then you said...

Naturally, there are many who will dispute this because it so obviously conforms to the actual subjective experience we have and the Biblical descriptions of reality above. Denial however does not change the facts, and again, even for non believers, you have the direct evidence of your non physical foundational being in the way you experience all you do, as subjective experience exclusively.

Whups. a bridge too far there general.

Biblical “descriptions” are so vague, so unspecific, so wrapped in metaphor and allusion, as to be at least, scientifically speaking,… meaningless bunk and jabberwocky. As you conceded earlier, the authors of the books of the Bible were trying to reach out to utterly uneducated and illiterate sheepherders, farmers, and idol/dirt worshippers.

To then extrapolate as reasoned dispute suggesting disparate conclusions devoid of supernatural cause/effect explanations as abject “denial” of a biblically “defined” biblical reality… is to then ignore (or “deny”) the very essence of being that we as a species exhibit naturally unto ourselves. If the Bible (as tourist guidebook to the cosmos) did not exist, would “reality” cease to exist? Really?

Yes, all experiences are indeed “subjective”…only and until those experiences interact with any other subjectively experienced encounter…with a rock, tree, or another human being. Objectivity begins and “exists” when two or more humans can observe the very same phenomena and agree that the experience exceeds purely subjective evaluation and understanding beyond any “assignment” of “spirituality”.

Does any of this prove the existence of God? Of course not, nor can it. That is a matter of faith, the exact same faith that allows you to see things as physical when they are not physical in the first place. WE each are spiritual and we each are our proof of it.

To reiterate… “faith” provides no more than proof of “faith” itself…

…and I’ve yet to see any scientific measure of that quality…

 

[Thief]

Science and the Scientific Method are terrific tools for obtaining a better understanding of the Natural Universe. Can it be used to understand the Supernatural Universe? Can it be used to prove or disprove the existence of the Almighty, God, supernatural forces or anything else which exists beyond our Natural Universe? I think not, but this article tries to make it sound like it can: Scientifically, God Does Not Exist - Science Allows us to Say God Does Not Exist - No Role for God in Science, No Explanation that God can Provide

Obviously the author of the article, Austin Cline, is a bit biased, but he is also smart enough to try focus most of his words narrowly yet he leaves the unstated impression that science can absolutely prove that God does not exist. Here he quotes Victor Stenger:

Note narrow definition of God and his point "as defined". While he is correct within his narrow parameters, to extrapolate that idea to say "God does not exist" is beyond scientific capability. Even the "high priest" of Atheism, Richard Dawkins, admits "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable". Fine. He guesses God is improbable but, as a scientist who is fully knowledgeable of the limitations of Science, he "cannot know for certain". If Dawkins can't know for certain, then why does a non-scientist Austin Cline believe he can know for certain?

Didn't get to read the entire thread....but here's my drop on it....

There won't be any evidence.
No photos, no fingerprints, no equations, and no repeatable experiments.

You just have to think about it.

And with billions of copies of a device that generates unique spirit in each one of us.....I think it obvious...

Man was created to become spirit.
The body is the means and method to do so.
We are here to learn all that we can.... and then back to God we go.

The scheme of things is .....obvious.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Didn't get to read the entire thread....but here's my drop on it....

There won't be any evidence.
No photos, no fingerprints, no equations, and no repeatable experiments.

Therefore, no rational reason whatsoever to believe it. I'm glad we agree.

You just have to think about it.

And with billions of copies of a device that generates unique spirit in each one of us.....I think it obvious...

Do you have any idea how patronizing that sounds? I have spent all my life thinking about it, and I almost couldn't be more convinced in the nonexistence of the supernatural or spiritual world. It's clearly not "obvious" because there are countless intelligent, rational people who are completely divided on the subject.

Man was created to become spirit.
The body is the means and method to do so.
We are here to learn all that we can.... and then back to God we go.

The scheme of things is .....obvious.

Prove it.

 

[Thief]

Therefore, no rational reason whatsoever to believe it. I'm glad we agree.

This is a poor retort as the reasoning ...obviously follows.

Do you have any idea how patronizing that sounds? I have spent all my life thinking about it, and I almost couldn't be more convinced in the nonexistence of the supernatural or spiritual world. It's clearly not "obvious" because there are countless intelligent, rational people who are completely divided on the subject.

And how you feel about it matters?

Prove it.

As stated...and defined by Webster's....faith requires no proving.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Sometimes that definition applies only to the Abrahamic faiths. Frequently faith is the conviction that a previous outcome can be trusted to be repeated. As in the example in 'I have faith my wife will be faithful to me'.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This is a poor resort as the reasoning ...obviously follows.

That's not reasoning.

And how you feel about it matters?

No, and neither does how you feel about it. Saying "it's obvious" is a non-argument, and an insult to people like me who have spent most of their life looking at the subject and have come to the opposite conclusion. You have failed to provided any shred of rational basis for your belief.

As stated...and defined by Webster's....faith requires no proving.

Which is why faith is utterly useless and completely detrimental to having an accurate understanding of reality.

 

[TRussert]

Good Morning,
I must admit, the response to my original posts was proof that the oldest profession in this world, contrary to popular belief, is that of critic! ))
I will take that criticism as my own deficiency in expressing myself more clearly to those who seemed so offended.
I did want to share one other point, not withstanding the apparent taboo against quoting others to reinforce one's opinions ( that post is gone for some reason).
!n 1997, the scientific journal Nature conducted a survey among scientists about how many believed on God, and therefore His divine spirituality, versus how many did not. The results were consistent with similar surveys conducted during the previous 95 years;
40% were believers in the Torah/Bible, 45% claimed no religious beliefs, and 15 % were atheist and non believers. I mention this only to show how all views are represented in the scientific community.
At the risk of "spamming" anyone here with quotes by some of these scientists, the following link lists comments from a number of scientists regarding their beliefs and conclusions about the existence of intelligent design/aka God.
godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html. (Sorry that you must Google this but I am not yet allowed to post working links)
Be forewarned, these quotes appear on a pro God website.
I am not providing this in any expectation of convincing anyone to change their views, but to simply show that acceptance and denial of God exists across a broad spectrum of scientists, and therefore shows advocacy for spiritual existence/God from the discipline most dedicated to ignoring or even disproving spirituality and God.
For those of you who are open minded, and despite your convictions of an existence void of this thread's topic, there are those who scientifically disagree with you.
Cheers

 

[s2a]

Good Morning,
I must admit, the response to my original posts was proof that the oldest profession in this world, contrary to popular belief, is that of critic! ))
I will take that criticism as my own deficiency in expressing myself more clearly to those who seemed so offended.
I did want to share one other point, not withstanding the apparent taboo against quoting others to reinforce one's opinions ( that post is gone for some reason).
!n 1997, the scientific journal Nature conducted a survey among scientists about how many believed on God, and therefore His divine spirituality, versus how many did not. The results were consistent with similar surveys conducted during the previous 95 years;
40% were believers in the Torah/Bible, 45% claimed no religious beliefs, and 15 % were atheist and non believers. I mention this only to show how all views are represented in the scientific community.
At the risk of "spamming" anyone here with quotes by some of these scientists, the following link lists comments from a number of scientists regarding their beliefs and conclusions about the existence of intelligent design/aka God.
godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html. (Sorry that you must Google this but I am not yet allowed to post working links)
Be forewarned, these quotes appear on a pro God website.
I am not providing this in any expectation of convincing anyone to change their views, but to simply show that acceptance and denial of God exists across a broad spectrum of scientists, and therefore shows advocacy for spiritual existence/God from the discipline most dedicated to ignoring or even disproving spirituality and God.
For those of you who are open minded, and despite your convictions of an existence void of this thread's topic, there are those who scientifically disagree with you.
Cheers

I would only add that there is indeed a broad difference between a "critic", and "critical thinking".

You may have been unprepared for rebuttals founded in the latter. However, I again extend my welcome to you to in your next level of self-imposed evaluations and re-examinations of whatever you care to share or proclaim as "truth".

Just so you know, and I hope you may at some point come to appreciate, I take no offense whatsoever by your contributions here so far... nary one.

In that vein, also know and understand that polling results of scientists regarding their levels of piety or degrees of acceptance/disbelief of religious claims only, ever, speak to the individualized perspectives of those polled... and polling numbers rarely reveal anything of lasting substance or value in estimations of deliberative fact.

Just saying...

 

[Thief]

That's not reasoning.


No, and neither does how you feel about it. Saying "it's obvious" is a non-argument, and an insult to people like me who have spent most of their life looking at the subject and have come to the opposite conclusion. You have failed to provided any shred of rational basis for your belief.


Which is why faith is utterly useless and completely detrimental to having an accurate understanding of reality.

Billions of copies of a device that can learn....producing unique souls with unique perspectives.....
and all of this means nothing to you?

You know nothing of evidence.

The abundance of occurrence speaks loudly of a Creator.

You're simply choosing not to listen.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Billions of copies of a device that can learn....producing unique souls with unique perspectives.....
and all of this means nothing to you?

Not nothing. I just fail to see why magic or omnipotent superbeings are necesarry to explain it.

Also, you have no evidence that souls exist.

You know nothing of evidence.

The abundance of occurrence speaks loudly of a Creator.

You're simply choosing not to listen.

No, you're choosing to forgo logic and jump on a simple explanation of something you cannot understand. There's absolutely no evidence of any kind of suggest that there is an intelligent creator. The fact that life reproduces doesn't lend any credibility whatsoever to the notion that life is inherently designed - this is basic reasoning.

 

[TRussert]

I would only add that there is indeed a broad difference between a "critic", and "critical thinking".

You may have been unprepared for rebuttals founded in the latter. However, I again extend my welcome to you to in your next level of self-imposed evaluations and re-examinations of whatever you care to share or proclaim as "truth".

Just so you know, and I hope you may at some point come to appreciate, I take no offense whatsoever by your contributions here so far... nary one.

In that vein, also know and understand that polling results of scientists regarding their levels of piety or degrees of acceptance/disbelief of religious claims only, ever, speak to the individualized perspectives of those polled... and polling numbers rarely reveal anything of lasting substance or value in estimations of deliberative fact.

Just saying...

Good Morning and Thank You IF,

So how do we get politicians to acknowledge that? ))

Cheers

 

[Gui10]

Science can not and will absolutely never prove the non existence of god.
Thats a pretty objective claim.

However, this is my own subjective reasoning for why it is so.

1. Let's supose that god DOES NOT exist:

You cannot prove the non existence of something that does not exist.
Ex:
You cannot prove the non existense of Jimbob the talking sheep.
You cannot prove the non existense of man who ran the 100m in under 6 seconds.
Jimbob and the fast man ''might exist'' but until they are proven to exist, they are considered non-existent.


2. Let's supose that god DOES exist:

You cannot prove the non existence of something that does exist. Well you ''can'' but the proof would be wrong, obviously.

So, ultimately, NOTHING or NO ONE can prove the non existense of god. The burden of proof remains on those who say they CAN prove the EXISTENCE of god.

So please, stop asking people to prove the non-existense of god.