If God existed would there be proof?

[Wildswanderer]

the singularity in the Big Bang theory

Which is what? We don't know. So calling it God is as good a guess as any.

 

[Kfox]

Which is what? We don't know. So calling it God is as good a guess as any.

Why not? People call all sorts of things God; there are those who worship nature, the Sun, even the moon! There is even a story in the Bible of people worshiping a big chunk of Gold (Golden Calf) so why not worship a singularity? Most people I know want to worship a God that is intelligent, and animated; however if you want to call a singularity God; ain't nobody stoppin' ya!

 

[rational experiences]

Science Mr I know everything said science is O lights time travel and base numbers one to twelve.

As he consciously stands on the body O a planet that travels through space hoping to not hit any other solid object whilst travelling.

So he knows space is empty to allow travel.

O earth he said it's owned entity knowing it is the only mass that he can as a physical life physically own take and manipulate to say now I own it.

As Mr know it all is also Mr greedy and Mr liar.

O earth travelling travelled around a lit sun O both alight bodies. The sun not travelling.

Which his super intelligence told him.

The God that consumes as light stays in a fixed state.

He also said as just a human consciousness having to own life by standing on O gods planet body that he is with God.

Versus Mr egos problems as Mr liar.

Why he said it as a scientist to ground his wandering thoughts.

So Mr I am on God earth said sciences conscious knowledge big bang blast was a cold fused earth travelling in a fixed no light state. The cold sun fixed that big banged blasted.

As his exact place consciouness on earth with God thinking.

 

[rational experiences]

Science should realise science of man's conscious memories just about science he theoried as just a man lied and possesses him today.

 

[lukethethird]

No.

Well, the difference is, science knows it's limits.

 

[lukethethird]

If God existed would there be proof?
Yes, when the time comes you just have to know where to look.

Matthew 24: 23 At that time, if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There He is!' do not believe it.

Confused? Well you should be.

 

[lukethethird]

No because we don't have to have a cause for an infinite being. Where as in science there are laws that regulate what is possible.

The laws of physics are based on observation, molecules behave a certain way only because they are observed to behave that way, there is no known laws that restricts their behavior.

Besides, the first cause argument is based on the premise that there must be a first cause, and now you come up with a supposed scenario where a first cause is not necessary, thereby contradicting the need for a first cause argument, so that's not gonna fly.

You can try to get around it but the fact is that it is not known what caused the universe to start expanding. I know you think you can outsmart the scientists but saying a creator did it is saying it was magic, the creator went poof and the universe started expanding. At present it is not known and it might even be beyond what can be known, and personally, I'm fine with that, besides, what's the alternative, pretending to know?

 

[night912]

Or you simply just have something that was always there.

That is impossible according to science.

No, you're wrong. Science has not determined that to be impossible.

 

[night912]

Or you simply just have something that was always there.

Why [ not how ] was it always there?

A short and simple answer is, it was always there since it wasn't created by anything.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have no idea what you are talking about or what it has to do with the fact that some truths can be empirically verified as fact.

Sorry for the late answer. Let us just leave it here, unless you are willing to learn how come there is this piece of text and how it relates to what you say:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
"...
Naturalism's axiomatic assumptions[edit]
All scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that are untested by scientific processes.[42][43] Kuhn concurs that all science is based on an approved agenda of unprovable assumptions about the character of the universe, rather than merely on empirical facts. These assumptions—a paradigm—comprise a collection of beliefs, values and techniques that are held by a given scientific community, which legitimize their systems and set the limitations to their investigation.[44] For naturalists, nature is the only reality, the only paradigm. There is no such thing as 'supernatural'. The scientific method is to be used to investigate all reality,[45] and Naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists.[46]

The following basic assumptions are needed to justify the scientific method.[47]

1. that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.[47][48] "The basis for rationality is acceptance of an external objective reality.".[49] "As an individual we cannot know that the sensory information we perceive is generated artificially or originates from a real world. Any belief that it arises from a real world outside us is actually an assumption. It seems more beneficial to assume that an objective reality exists than to live with solipsism, and so people are quite happy to make this assumption. In fact we made this assumption unconsciously when we began to learn about the world as infants. The world outside ourselves appears to respond in ways which are consistent with it being real. ... The assumption of objectivism is essential if we are to attach the contemporary meanings to our sensations and feelings and make more sense of them."[50] "Without this assumption, there would be only the thoughts and images in our own mind (which would be the only existing mind) and there would be no need of science, or anything else."[51]
2. that this objective reality is governed by natural laws.[47][48] "Science, at least today, assumes that the universe obeys to knowable principles that don't depend on time or place, nor on subjective parameters such as what we think, know or how we behave."[49] Hugh Gauch argues that science presupposes that "the physical world is orderly and comprehensible."[52]
3. that reality can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.[47][48] Stanley Sobottka said, "The assumption of external reality is necessary for science to function and to flourish. For the most part, science is the discovering and explaining of the external world."[51] "Science attempts to produce knowledge that is as universal and objective as possible within the realm of human understanding."[49]
4. that Nature has uniformity of laws and most if not all things in nature must have at least a natural cause.[48] Biologist Stephen Jay Gould referred to these two closely related propositions as the constancy of nature's laws and the operation of known processes.[53] Simpson agrees that the axiom of uniformity of law, an unprovable postulate, is necessary in order for scientists to extrapolate inductive inference into the unobservable past in order to meaningfully study it.[54]
5. that experimental procedures will be done satisfactorily without any deliberate or unintentional mistakes that will influence the results.[48]
6. that experimenters won't be significantly biased by their presumptions.[48]
7. that random sampling is representative of the entire population.[48] A simple random sample (SRS) is the most basic probabilistic option used for creating a sample from a population. The benefit of SRS is that the investigator is guaranteed to choose a sample that represents the population that ensures statistically valid conclusions.[55]

..."

 

[muhammad_isa]

A short and simple answer is, it was always there since it wasn't created by anything.

That is not really an answer at all though.
It simply avoids the issue of "why".

It implies that all we see has no author, and is all one big coincidence.
My inquiring mind cannot accept that.
Each to their own.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If God existed would there be proof?

I am not asking if there could be proof or if there should be proof, I am asking if there would be proof.

• If God existed would God provide proof of His existence?
• Does the fact that there is no proof of God's existence mean that God does not exist?
• In other words, could God exist and not provide proof of His existence?

If undetectable dragons existed, would there be proof?

I am not asking if there could be proof or if there should be proof, I am asking if there would be proof.

• If undetectable dragons existed would these dragons provide proof of their existence?
• Does the fact that there is no proof of those dragon's existence mean that these dragons do not exist?
• In other words, could these dragons exist and not provide proof of their existence?

You can, off course, substitute "undetectable dragon" with just about ANY unfalsifiable thing and the merit of the underlying "point" or "argument" would remain the same.

This should tell you something about the meaningfulness of whatever point you are trying to make here.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I agree, because I believe I have proof, but my proof is not proof to everyone else.

Then you don't have what you claim to have.
The thing about proof and evidence, is that you can share it with others to support a certain claim or position.

That's is a good point. If God provided proof how would anyone know it was God providing it, whatever that proof was?

I would imagine that an all-knowing, omnipotent entity would know exactly how to accomplish that.

Such an entity would be able to turn me into a believer right here and now, as he would know exactly what would convince me on the spot. Even better then I know myself.

The fact that he doesn't do so is because of any of the following:
- he doesn't care to, which imo would be neglect (just like when I don't try and prevent my ignorant kids from making the wrong decisions, even if it is with the best intentions)
- he can't (not omnipotent)
- he doesn't know how to (not all knowing)
- he doesn't because he doesn't exist

Given these options, I consider the last one to be the most likely.

 

[Kfox]

Sorry for the late answer. Let us just leave it here, unless you are willing to learn how come there is this piece of text and how it relates to what you say:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
"...
Naturalism's axiomatic assumptions[edit]
All scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that are untested by scientific processes.[42][43] Kuhn concurs that all science is based on an approved agenda of unprovable assumptions about the character of the universe, rather than merely on empirical facts. These assumptions—a paradigm—comprise a collection of beliefs, values and techniques that are held by a given scientific community, which legitimize their systems and set the limitations to their investigation.[44] For naturalists, nature is the only reality, the only paradigm. There is no such thing as 'supernatural'. The scientific method is to be used to investigate all reality,[45] and Naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists.[46]

The following basic assumptions are needed to justify the scientific method.[47]

1. that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.[47][48] "The basis for rationality is acceptance of an external objective reality.".[49] "As an individual we cannot know that the sensory information we perceive is generated artificially or originates from a real world. Any belief that it arises from a real world outside us is actually an assumption. It seems more beneficial to assume that an objective reality exists than to live with solipsism, and so people are quite happy to make this assumption. In fact we made this assumption unconsciously when we began to learn about the world as infants. The world outside ourselves appears to respond in ways which are consistent with it being real. ... The assumption of objectivism is essential if we are to attach the contemporary meanings to our sensations and feelings and make more sense of them."[50] "Without this assumption, there would be only the thoughts and images in our own mind (which would be the only existing mind) and there would be no need of science, or anything else."[51]
2. that this objective reality is governed by natural laws.[47][48] "Science, at least today, assumes that the universe obeys to knowable principles that don't depend on time or place, nor on subjective parameters such as what we think, know or how we behave."[49] Hugh Gauch argues that science presupposes that "the physical world is orderly and comprehensible."[52]
3. that reality can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.[47][48] Stanley Sobottka said, "The assumption of external reality is necessary for science to function and to flourish. For the most part, science is the discovering and explaining of the external world."[51] "Science attempts to produce knowledge that is as universal and objective as possible within the realm of human understanding."[49]
4. that Nature has uniformity of laws and most if not all things in nature must have at least a natural cause.[48] Biologist Stephen Jay Gould referred to these two closely related propositions as the constancy of nature's laws and the operation of known processes.[53] Simpson agrees that the axiom of uniformity of law, an unprovable postulate, is necessary in order for scientists to extrapolate inductive inference into the unobservable past in order to meaningfully study it.[54]
5. that experimental procedures will be done satisfactorily without any deliberate or unintentional mistakes that will influence the results.[48]
6. that experimenters won't be significantly biased by their presumptions.[48]
7. that random sampling is representative of the entire population.[48] A simple random sample (SRS) is the most basic probabilistic option used for creating a sample from a population. The benefit of SRS is that the investigator is guaranteed to choose a sample that represents the population that ensures statistically valid conclusions.[55]

..."

Philosophy of Science??? My question was about truth not philosophy. I don't see how this relates to what I said.

 

[Kfox]

That is not really an answer at all though.

I disagree; I thought it was a very good answer

It simply avoids the issue of "why".

Perhaps he doesn't know why. What's he supposed to do; make something up?

It implies that all we see has no author, and is all one big coincidence.

No it doesn't; you are reading into something that isn't there.

My inquiring mind cannot accept that.
Each to their own.

Would you rather he just make stuff up to satisfy your inquiring mind?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Philosophy of Science??? My question was about truth not philosophy. I don't see how this relates to what I said.

Yeah, truth as you use it belong to philosophy as you are in effect you the correspondence theory of truth and that is philosophy. Now truth was abounded in science and replaced with the link I gave you.
So here and read on and you will get to the correspondence theory of truth.
Truth - Wikipedia
Correspondence theory of truth - Wikipedia
You will now notice metaphysics and philosophy of language. The latter is philosophy and the former if you check it, you will notice that metaphysics is philosophy.
Metaphysics - Wikipedia

So historically truth was replaced with evidence in science and what is called methodological naturalism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is not really an answer at all though.
It simply avoids the issue of "why".

Who says there is a "why"? This "why" issue might not actually be an issue. And seeing as there isn't a single shred of evidence for a "why", chances are rather enormous that this "issue" only exists in your head.

It implies that all we see has no author, and is all one big coincidence.

That's a false dichotomy.

My inquiring mind cannot accept that.

Please... it's not an "inquiring mind". It's rather a "mind locked up in a specific religious doctrine".

 

[muhammad_isa]

Please... it's not an "inquiring mind". It's rather a "mind locked up in a specific religious doctrine".

It is my inquiring mind that led me to believe in G-d in the first place.
It is my inquiring mind that led me to consider which creed is closer to the truth.

Inquiring minds are not confined to one academic discipline.
Science can be employed for good or bad purposes.
Science cannot in itself distinguish between the two.

..hence, there's more to life than science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is my inquiring mind that led me to believe in G-d in the first place.
It is my inquiring mind that led me to consider which creed is closer to the truth.

If you say so. I find it a bit hard to believe, considering your "inquiring mind" also gave us that gem a few days ago where you argued against evolutionary history and motivated your dogmatism by saying "...whatever the evidence is".

So yeah... excuse me while I take those claims of yours with a few tons of salt.

Science can be employed for good or bad purposes.
Science cannot in itself distinguish between the two.

I disagree.
It is in fact through science that we can know and understand the consequences of our actions.
It is science that tells us the difference between "sick" and "healthy", for example.
So it is through science that we can understand how for example the use of certain tech is harmful for health, which would then effectively render the use of such tech "immoral" if no precautionary measures are taken to remove the health hazards.

..hence, there's more to life than science.

Off course there is more to life then science.
Nevertheless it is through science that we understand life and the processes of the universe, and how our actions affect others.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I disagree.
It is in fact through science that we can know and understand the consequences of our actions..

This is arrogance.
You claim that mankind can know everything through their own intellect.

Time and again, this has been proved wrong.
Climste-change is a case in point.

It is only religion that can solve this issue, and mankind continues to posit that they can solve it by "carbon-trading" and what have you, and so continue on their blind path to destruction.