Please use science to prove God exist

[Unveiled Artist]

Um. Define God so we know "and" start or test on what we are trying to find proof for.

If there is no definition from the other side (not the religious), an idea of some sort so that scientific test can be used, how do you expect to find god with proof?

Ex. If there is no car in front me, then that car does not exist. What car? Are there properties of this invisible car that I can use to start my investigation that it doesnt exist regardless the claims that it does?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

God doesn't exist and here is the scientific proof:

So there.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Define God so we know "and" start or test on what we are trying to find proof for.

Define "definition".

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Define "definition".

If a scientist is doing the test, he wouldnt use a religious person's tools (such as their def. of words etc) bu their own so they have an objective study.

Therefore, using my def. defeats the purpose of any tests.

Thats like the scientist using a religious person's test to disprove a god they have not defined for themselves

 

[Unveiled Artist]

God doesn't exist and here is the scientific proof:

So there.

Lol. Playing devil's advocate.

So, by what tests did you use? And how did you define this God you said doesnt exist? To me, you could define God as an astronaut with four heads.

 

[MARCELLO]

What happens inside of an atom clearly proves God.

Yupppppppppieeee!!! I am regaining my belief back.

I will never listen to the news about fanatics,I clearly know that they have nothing to do with religion. They are just maniacs.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

To me, you could define God as an astronaut with four heads.

This device apparently tests for all possible variations in our galaxy. I don't know exactly how it works because it's space-alien technology.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This device apparently tests for all possible variations in our galaxy. I don't know exactly how it works because it's space-alien technology.

LOL Okay. I go with that. How did you test it with this technology if you dont know how it works? Maybe just going off of others results and not your own test?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If a scientist is doing the test, he wouldnt use a religious person's tools (such as their def. of words etc) bu their own so they have an objective study.

1) My point was that the problem with your proposal lies with a "hidden" assumption concerning meaning
2) The first neuroimaging study I worked on used "a religious person's tools (such as their def. of words...)" as a foundation of the study. Plenty of other studies I and others have worked have done the same.

 

[Terese]

You really can't. God is a spiritual entity, and depending on how you believe God is, e.g the universe itself or not connected to it at all, God is beyond space and time, no beginning and no end, and our modern science cannot even perceive all that is visible in the universe yet. Think of how we only see a tiny fraction of the light spectrum. We are limited to our perception of reality, and not all that appears is all there is.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

Um. Define God so we know "and" start or test on what we are trying to find proof for.

If there is no definition from the other side (not the religious), an idea of some sort so that scientific test can be used, how do you expect to find god with proof?

Ex. If there is no car in front me, then that car does not exist. What car? Are there properties of this invisible car that I can use to start my investigation that it doesnt exist regardless the claims that it does?

Science can only discover physical matter, spiritual stuff is scientifically undetectable. Scientifically you cant even proof that there are other persons beside you, so i think it will be even harder/impossible to prove that there are, not material or physical, but spiritual persons.

 

[allfoak]

The only test there is for the existence of God...
Is your willingness to know.

Anyone who has a genuine desire to know themselves will learn that they are a child of the living God.
You must experiment on yourself.
Those who seek will find.

 

[wizanda]

 

[Robert.Evans]

Um. Define God so we know "and" start or test on what we are trying to find proof for.

If there is no definition from the other side (not the religious), an idea of some sort so that scientific test can be used, how do you expect to find god with proof?

Ex. If there is no car in front me, then that car does not exist. What car? Are there properties of this invisible car that I can use to start my investigation that it doesnt exist regardless the claims that it does?

Ultimately God proves it not man; all we can give is arguments. Here is one I posted elsewhere:

In the words of [hand typed] of physicist G Schroeder:

"In the words of the knighted mathematician James Jeans, the world looks more like a great thought than a great machine. Biblical theology agrees totally, telling us, as we will learn, that God used a substrate of wisdom with which to build the world. This Divine wisdom or mind is present in every iota of the world's being. It explains how the energy of the creation, essentially superpowerful light beams, could become alive and sentient, able to feel love and joy and wonder. Divine wisdom was and is present, guiding and forming the way.
The secular world of course takes a different stance. If we can get past the question of what created the universe from nothing (was it God?), we then let the laws of nature take the credit for producing, in some as yet unknown way, the magnificence of the life from the big bang burst of pure, exquisitely hot energy. All this by random chance. It takes a stretch of the imagination, but that is all that is available to a secular explanation of our cosmic genesis."

 

[McBell]

Ultimately God proves it not man; all we can give is arguments. Here is one I posted elsewhere:

In the words of [hand typed] of physicist G Schroeder:

"In the words of the knighted mathematician James Jeans, the world looks more like a great thought than a great machine. Biblical theology agrees totally, telling us, as we will learn, that God used a substrate of wisdom with which to build the world. This Divine wisdom or mind is present in every iota of the world's being. It explains how the energy of the creation, essentially superpowerful light beams, could become alive and sentient, able to feel love and joy and wonder. Divine wisdom was and is present, guiding and forming the way.
The secular world of course takes a different stance. If we can get past the question of what created the universe from nothing (was it God?), we then let the laws of nature take the credit for producing, in some as yet unknown way, the magnificence of the life from the big bang burst of pure, exquisitely hot energy. All this by random chance. It takes a stretch of the imagination, but that is all that is available to a secular explanation of our cosmic genesis."

That is not an argument.
That is an opinion.
As presented it is an appeal to authority fallacy.

I shall not bore you listing the fallacies used in the opinion piece quoted.

 

[viole]

The only test there is for the existence of God...
Is your willingness to know.

Anyone who has a genuine desire to know themselves will learn that they are a child of the living God.
You must experiment on yourself.
Those who seek will find.

The problem is that those seekers find very different Gods. So, either God manifests Himself as an elephant-headed creature or as a good looking redeemer depending on where you live, or the claims of the average seeker to have found God are highly unreliable.

What is more plausible?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Brickjectivity]

Three ways that people describe God or decide there is a God come from: 1. personal or community accounts (like prophecies and visions and enlightenments etc) 2. Decision that God is necessary and thus must exist 3. Derived from the observation that all things interact and so are part of one large system.

These are three ways that people begin their description of or exploration of God and the attributes of God. We can call them 3 sources of discovery or three ways people approach God or three ideas of God. (There are other major ways, too.) On the positive side, call these three ways of discovery. On the negative side call them three ideas. If God is real then the positive descriptions are correct and these are three means of discovering God. Of God is not real then they are three ideas about God.

Sometimes God is 'Discovered' by accident as part of a completely unrelated search. For example God might be discovered in the search for the source of the power by which all creatures live, or in a search to find how to change lead into gold. The discovery sometimes happens on the most unlikely of searches.

 

[Robert.Evans]

That is not an argument.
That is an opinion.
As presented it is an appeal to authority fallacy.

I shall not bore you listing the fallacies used in the opinion piece quoted.

The second one, "reason". I see no problem with it.

ar·gu·ment

ar·gu·ment [rgyəmənt]
(plural ar·gu·ments)
n
1. disagreement: a disagreement in which different views are expressed, often angrily
2. reason: a reason put forward in support of or in opposition to a point of view
the arguments for and against the planned development

3. stated point of view: the main point of view expressed in a book, report, or speech
4. discussion: debate or discussion about whether something is correct
5. grammar noun element in clause: a noun element in a clause that relates directly to the verb, e.g. the subject or object
6. comput feature controlling computer program: a value that modifies how a command or function operates in a computer program

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I shall not bore you listing the fallacies used in the opinion piece quoted.

I shall sleep a little easier tonight

 

[Rick O'Shez]

LOL Okay. I go with that. How did you test it with this technology if you dont know how it works? Maybe just going off of others results and not your own test?

It came with a guarantee from the Galactic Trading Company. It's amazing how small they've made it now, the early God detectors were much bigger: