Please use science to prove God exist

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't think we can, so we have to allow for the possibility that God exists.
Alternatively one can become ignostic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

Why the possibility? Because its a strong claim that the non-religious can't ignore?

Oh. It could be ignostic. I resgnate with that better than the "commonly defined" atheist definition, that for some reason, people think they reject Gods ('nother thread)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What is your field in science ?

That isn't the point. Do you understand the context behind my questions? or at least the reasoning even if you disagree?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What qualifications do these Space-alien Cat People have that makes other God-Dector companies less effective in their equipment?

It's partly they're good at marketing, a good corporate image:

 

[McBell]

God does exist with the proof, but those who don't want to believe won't see it and even will refute it.

And those who want and or need to see will see what they want.

 

[McBell]

For example there are some facts in the quran which proves God's existence which was misinterpreted by the ancient
scholars and those who don't wan't to believe will reject it and even will try to refute it.

Sad that no one has been able to present any of these "facts" in a way that non-choir members can understand...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Why the possibility? Because its a strong claim that the non-religious can't ignore?

Yes, it's possible that God does exist, in some shape or form.

 

[FearGod]

Sad that no one has been able to present any of these "facts" in a way that non-choir members can understand...

The facts are clear but since God isn't a human being then we need to decode the information.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes, it's possible that God does exist, in some shape or form.

I bet if someone whispered it in a tiny book with the copyright 1999, they'd ignore the claim.

 

[picnic]

It seems to me that the product of science is always a pattern that describes observations. For example, Kepler observed patterns in the orbits of planets. He observed that the area swept by a string connecting the planet to the sun depends only on the elapsed time and is independent of the distance from the sun. ( Maybe I said that wrong, so here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion )

That's not cause-and-effect, but it is a pattern or an equation. The observations don't need to exactly match the equation, but they need to be close.

So we need to hypothesize an equation or pattern that is synonymous with the existence of God. Then science can do its thing.

 

[RedDragon94]

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

Would you like a Youtube video?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Would you like a Youtube video?

About?

 

[RedDragon94]

About?

This topic.

 

[viole]

Because our understanding is often limited to our culture.
Most of us in Alabama would reject the elephant as an hallucination.
As those in the east would reject the Christian God.

Culture is a strong medium of influence.
It is also a very limited medium.
By medium i mean that our culture is in the middle of God and us.
We use what we have learned growing up to interpret our experience.

It is limiting but most will never rise above their culture.
It is just a very big cult with lots of little ones within.

What one is capable of knowing about God is limited to our understanding of ourselves.

Could be, but atheism has an edge. The disbelief we have in god or gods is shared by all atheists, independently from them being from Alabama or Calcutta. The same cannot be said for theists, obviously.

So, who is more likely to be right, considering that atheists hold a belief, or a lack thereof, that is clear from any cultural influence?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

Could be, but atheism has an edge. The disbelief we have in god or gods is shared by all atheists, independently from them being from Alabama or Calcutta. The same cannot be said for theists, obviously.

So, who is more likely to be right, considering that atheists hold a belief, or a lack thereof, that is clear from any cultural influence?

Ciao

- viole

wow, really? you can really be awful at present simple facts and reality to people some times. the disbelief of atheists is shared just as the belief of ALL theists is shared that there is a divine realm. you just confuse and misuse the words in order to present theism as a contradictory worldview, when infact it is about believing in the "supernatural" and the "divine". i can also say that atheists follow different schools of philosophy and different politics and thus all atheists are contradictory, but that would be a correct represantation of atheism would it?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This topic.

Give a summary. There's a lot of points I made in this topic.

 

[McBell]

The facts are clear but since God isn't a human being then we need to decode the information.

Thank you for further proving my point

 

[Twilight Hue]

I find it ludicrous that for all the supposed "obviousnes" attributed to God , that people fail miserably in face of conducting even a simple science experiment to show at least some of that "obviousness."

 

[Cephus]

I find it ludicrous that for all the supposed "obviousnes" attributed to God , that people fail miserably in face of conducting even a simple science experiment to show at least some of that "obviousness."

Exactly. It's like all of the characteristics that have been arbitrarily assigned to God. How do they know? It isn't like they've ever had God to examine for themselves. How do they know if these characteristics are actually true? But try to question them on it and they freak out, of course their God is exactly the way they assume their God to be! How dare anyone question that!

 

[viole]

wow, really? you can really be awful at present simple facts and reality to people some times. the disbelief of atheists is shared just as the belief of ALL theists is shared that there is a divine realm. you just confuse and misuse the words in order to present theism as a contradictory worldview, when infact it is about believing in the "supernatural" and the "divine". i can also say that atheists follow different schools of philosophy and different politics and thus all atheists are contradictory, but that would be a correct represantation of atheism would it?

Fact is: the majority of people who believe in God are wrong, necessarily. This is obvious if we consider that there is no religion that represents the absolute majority of the population that lives or that ever lived. No matter what God you believe in, the majority of people does not or did not believe in your God. So, only a minority can be right, at best.

And is so many theists are so obviously wrong, why should we take seriously their related claims of a supernatural realm?

Ciao

- viole

 

[arthra]

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?

Fortunately... God is not a car....Wow... If I could count the cars I've owned... Hmmm...You ever heard of that old TV show "My Mother the Car"?

and uhhh... How many times have science textbooks been rewritten? In my lifetime alone? Several times.

It seems to me though that this is posed as some kind of debate.. one side verses the other.

Kind of like when Moses contended with the priests of Pharaoh or when Elijah called down a fire on Mount Carmel.... or in the Quran Jesus was asked to bring down a table from heaven and Baha'u'llah was asked to perform a miracle for the Mullahs. Baha'u'llah suggested to them that He would perform the miracle if (1) they agreed on the miracle and (2) when the miracle was performed they would become His followers. Well those Mullahs would have none of that...

But looking back over the revelations of the past in human history for what oh the past three thousand years or so... it's hard to find something as consistent and as persistent as the interaction between the Divine and the human.

I was reading earlier today about the survivors of the holocaust and how many of them never lost their faith... even going through that hell .. to me that would be close to a miracle. But one of the statements I read impressed me and I think it responds rather well to the question being asked here:

A Hasidic master once said, “A God who limits himself to actions that we humans can understand couldn’t possibly be God.”

Baha'u'llah also revealed the following in a book called Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah p. 46-47 the following:


To every discerning and illuminated heart it is evident that God, the unknowable Essence, the Divine Being, is immensely exalted beyond every human attribute, such as corporeal existence, ascent and descent, egress and regress. Far be it from His glory that human tongue should adequately recount His praise, or that human heart comprehend His fathomless mystery. He is, and hath ever been, veiled in the ancient eternity of His Essence, and will remain in His Reality everlastingly hidden from the sight of men. "No vision taketh in Him, but He taketh in all vision; He is the Subtile, the All-Perceiving."...